Official For Glory / Online Features Discussion (／・ω・)／

[TerraRizerKing]

Not sure if this was mentioned here but FD isnt the only stage in for glory mode. Sakurai did confirm that stages with a FD form factor will appear in for glory mode as well.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Guys, this isn't difficult; you're over-complicating things.

Global Smash Power is being designed to act as a barometer of what a player is capable of in Smash Bros., but Sakurai doesn't want to use PvP win/loss ratios for that power ranking for a few reasons. First, he thinks it's kind of demeaning. And for most people, it is. Strings of bad matchmaking can wreck someone's ranking; this happens to a friend of mine in DotA 2 all the time, as he'll get a string of ranked matches with trolls who sabotage his own team and thus he never moves up in the rankings. Second, he doesn't think it's that useful. After all, if someone is ranked 300,000 out of 10,000,000 players, that doesn't necessarily mean that the player won vs. 700,000 people and lost vs. 299,000 people, so it's not accurate.

Therefore, Sakurai figured out a way around both of these problems: instead of ranking players against each other, you give them a "standardized test", so to speak, and rank them based on their scores on that test. And what is the test? Arcade Mode. Adventure Mode. All-Star Mode. Theoretically, Multi-Man Melee or Break the Targets or Home Run Contest, if they are announced.

In this way, everyone is playing against the same test: the single player modes. And, Sakurai is assuming that the skills you'd need in order to excel at the single player modes directly translate to the skills you'd need to excel at PvP. Therefore, by calculating a master score based on all of your performances vs. the computer, the exact same computer that everyone else is also being tested against, he can compare one player's master score against everyone else's master score at the same time in a way that you can't do with PvP (without a massive 10,000,000 player round robin tournament).

This is what allows him to use GSP for online matchmaking. Assuming everyone is taking the same test against the computer in single player modes, everyone's GSP should be indicative of what they are capable of in a general sense, against the computer OR against a live opponent. So, people of similar GSP levels should be well matched against each other online.

It's very easy to see how Sakurai can effectively use GSP to do quality online matchmaking. In fact, this may end up working better than traditional W/L or KDA matchmaking.

This also has the added benefit of incentivizing single player play. After all, many PvP players would only play SSB4 for the online or for live fights (either with friends in the living room or at a tournament). However, by ignoring or neglecting single player modes, your GSP score lowers, and your matchmaking is worse. So, even the best, highest level players have a reason to keep at single player, beating it with non-mains and improving scores with mains, in order to keep their GSP as high as possible, which increases their time with the game.

 

[Seraphim.]

why are people cmplaining about FD only?

I've always played no items, FD only in my beginner days. The choice is completely logical.

FD isn't the most balanced stage, since it has no platforms characters with a good projectile game or a chaingrab will have an advantage.

Little Mac will also probably be a good character in For glory too.

 

[Yikarur]

FD isn't the most balanced stage, since it has no platforms characters with a good projectile game or a chaingrab will have an advantage.

Little Mac will also probably be a good character in For glory too.

Obviously. Thats not the point of my post.

 

[Renji64]

Hopefully he is open to improving these modes we need some platforms for this mode as well. I don't wanna fill up my friendlist just for stage variety.

 

[Chiroz]

Guys, this isn't difficult; you're over-complicating things.

Global Smash Power is being designed to act as a barometer of what a player is capable of in Smash Bros., but Sakurai doesn't want to use PvP win/loss ratios for that power ranking for a few reasons. First, he thinks it's kind of demeaning. And for most people, it is. Strings of bad matchmaking can wreck someone's ranking; this happens to a friend of mine in DotA 2 all the time, as he'll get a string of ranked matches with trolls who sabotage his own team and thus he never moves up in the rankings. Second, he doesn't think it's that useful. After all, if someone is ranked 300,000 out of 10,000,000 players, that doesn't necessarily mean that the player won vs. 700,000 people and lost vs. 299,000 people, so it's not accurate.

Therefore, Sakurai figured out a way around both of these problems: instead of ranking players against each other, you give them a "standardized test", so to speak, and rank them based on their scores on that test. And what is the test? Arcade Mode. Adventure Mode. All-Star Mode. Theoretically, Multi-Man Melee or Break the Targets or Home Run Contest, if they are announced.

In this way, everyone is playing against the same test: the single player modes. And, Sakurai is assuming that the skills you'd need in order to excel at the single player modes directly translate to the skills you'd need to excel at PvP. Therefore, by calculating a master score based on all of your performances vs. the computer, the exact same computer that everyone else is also being tested against, he can compare one player's master score against everyone else's master score at the same time in a way that you can't do with PvP (without a massive 10,000,000 player round robin tournament).

This is what allows him to use GSP for online matchmaking. Assuming everyone is taking the same test against the computer in single player modes, everyone's GSP should be indicative of what they are capable of in a general sense, against the computer OR against a live opponent. So, people of similar GSP levels should be well matched against each other online.

It's very easy to see how Sakurai can effectively use GSP to do quality online matchmaking. In fact, this may end up working better than traditional W/L or KDA matchmaking.

This also has the added benefit of incentivizing single player play. After all, many PvP players would only play SSB4 for the online or for live fights (either with friends in the living room or at a tournament). However, by ignoring or neglecting single player modes, your GSP score lowers, and your matchmaking is worse. So, even the best, highest level players have a reason to keep at single player, beating it with non-mains and improving scores with mains, in order to keep their GSP as high as possible, which increases their time with the game.

The thing is, traditional matchmaking, such as DotA 2 or LoL isn't based on W/L or KDA, its based on a hidden MMR (Match Making Rating) which is calculated based on WHO you've beaten, not how many times you have won, but who you beat every time that you win.

I'll try to explain both, why the single player GSP is not a good measure of skill and 2 why MMR is a good way of measuring skill in a "perfect" numbers case.



First, about your example of GSP, I understand perfectly your opinion and arguments about why it is a "good" way to measure skill. It mimics the system us humans have set for our education, which is the most important part of "measuring" someone that we as a whole have. Standardized tests and exams are things seen in every professional aspect, yet they are almost never the "best" way to test, the problem is, all other ways are impractical in a real world scenario. You have 14 year old kids still in school who know Astro Physics, yet they can't tell you who won the revolutionary war of 1956 (making stuff up) and because of this they aren't passing the "tests" as well as other kids who don't have said Astro Physics knowledge.

Now, obviously the problem is that the test is not only on Astro Physics, but thats were the impracticality comes. You can't start giving out thousands of tests on different topics to everyone in order to judge their skills, you have to have a standard and sometimes that standard cannot gauge specifics well enough.

In GSP's case, in single player events and challenges you cannot judge a persons ability to read, bait, improvise and remain unpredictable. These things are impossible for the PC to gauge. Sure you can test them on things like game knowledge, execution, tech skill and overall creativity with the game engine, but we all know that isn't enough to make a good player. Someone with good game knowledge and tech skill will probably be good enough to compete, but if he is lacking all of the mind skills necessary for high level of play he probably won't be able to triumph. Then we have the other spectrum, someone who is completely new to the game and as such has no tech skill or game knowledge yet, but he is incredibly adept at video games and is used to playing competitively at a higher level of mind skill and will probably be placed with the bottom of the player pool where he will probably not be faced with enough challenge.

One thing to note is that if you stop playing solo, then GSP will remain the same theoretically and you will never move away from your current pool of players you can be placed against, so someone who fails the GSP test the first time could never take it again and "pub-stomp" for the rest of his Smash 4 career.




Now, moving on to why MMR is a good way to rank people into groups. MMR is not dependant on W/L as you seem to believe, instead MMR depends on who you beat. How does this work? Well normally everyone starts out as an equal (normally at 1500 MMR, at least for LoL, DotA and WoW). Now you also have a hidden "confidence" level which represents how much "confidence" the game has on your current MMR. The less confidence the machine has on your number, the more points you can win/lose per match. Normally the machine will start with a very low confidence on your MMR since that 1500 is the standard starting point and it has no idea where you should be placed. As you lose or win, your MMR will start skyrocketing, but with every game the game will gain more confidence on the MMR its placing you at. If you start winning too much, the game will start placing you with much higher rated opponents, if you keep defeating said opponents the game will start losing confidence because it will think that if you are beating much higher rated played then you should be placed higher, and thus, losing confidence makes you climb faster. The same thing happens if you lose too much, the game will start placing you against opponents with much lower MMR than you have, if you keep losing against those opponents then the game will lose confidence in your MMR, thinking that you should be placed lower than what you are.

If on the other hand you start winning many games, but then the game places you 3 or 4 matches against much higher rated opponents and you lose all 3 or 4, it will understand that your MMR should be in between what you have now and that MMR of those opponents that defeated you. It will then gain more confidence in your current placement which means that wins will be worth less per game.

Why does this work? Well because it is always measuring you against other opponents. It isn't basing you on number of wins or losses but on who you beat. Chances are that if M2K beats Ally, Ken and HungryBox most of the games they play, and all 3 of those beat ADHD and you beat M2K, then you should probably be able to beat ADHD, maybe not Ally, Ken and HungryBox, which is why the game will first test you against people higher than M2K before letting you advance, if you lose against the players above M2K then the game will stop placing you with people much higher than you and start placing you with people around what it believes your own level is (in this case Ally, Ken and HungryBox), if you beat them all then you would climb to M2K's level and since you couldn't beat the players above M2K you have theoretically reached the perfect spot for yourself. If on the other hand you were much better than the players above M2K then the system would have completely jumped Ally, HungryBox and Ken and you would have just swooped past them when you defeated the other players. If on the other hand (3 hands what?) you were worse than Ally, Ken and HungryBox then as soon as you were placed against them and lost you would be lowered to ADHD's level, if you kept losing then the machine would lose confidence on you, start placing you against opponents much lower than yourself and if you kept losing you would then freefall to the bottom.



I hope my post was understandable. If you prefer I can give you actual math if that is easier to understand.



Anyways about Sakurai, he didn't say GSP was going to be used to match players, he said "You should also know that though there won't rankings in online multiplayer there will be some sort of matchmaking going on based on skill level".

That was said exactly after he finished explaining what GSP was. If they were to be matched by GSP he would have probably just said: "We will match players by using this new system"

 

[CosmicKirby]

I just though of how disheartening it will be for the one guy who gets a GSP of zero...

I'd make it my goal to attain a GSP of Zero.

Story Mode Record Clear time: 6 days, 21 hours, 54 minutes, 20 seconds.

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

I figured that guy would be the one who got it, played for an hour, then put it on the shelf and went back to COD.

 

[skstylez]

Far more than FD only has me concerned, it seems that For Glory mode is time and not stock. A real shame.

Not true. There was no timer shown

 

[Ryuutakeshi]

Not true. There was no timer shown

True, but sakurai only mentions the possibility of stock or timed battles for online with friends. The FG sample didn't have any stock icons so unless it's a new setup altogether I can only assume it is a timed match with a hidden timer. Then again, the footage isn't final and is far from all inclusive.

 

[skstylez]

True, but sakurai only mentions the possibility of stock or timed battles for online with friends. The FG sample didn't have any stock icons so unless it's a new setup altogether I can only assume it is a timed match with a hidden timer. Then again, the footage isn't final and is far from all inclusive.

Like you said the footage isn't final. And who's to say the stock icons weren't hidden instead of the timer? My guess is that all rules haven't been figured out (number of stocks, base time limit etc).

Still stock is far more likely. We already see Sakurai is using the Japanese tournament standards with FD stages, meaning he'd almost certainly add stocks.

 

[warionumbah2]

I don't care, i'll just add people here on my friends list and have a blast. But i would like it if Sakurai did what you stated in the OP.

 

[Sucumbio]

iirc sakuri said relatively close to the start of the video that nothing is set in stone or words to that effect. Everyone that outed themselves in this thread will get super laggy connections for the first month after purchase as punishment. Ok no but seriously it does kinda bother me having fd styled only but obviously this is a design choice and for now I will trust it.

Stocks, prolly not... he's said previously that he wants to avoid players who get ko'd early to have to sit and watch. Though temple ends up like that in sd >:-o maybe in 1v1 tho...

No mention of team battle I hope it's still in it or at least being considered.

Love rankings and matchmaking based on skill.

 

[Fuqua]

Guys, this isn't difficult; you're over-complicating things.

Global Smash Power is being designed to act as a barometer of what a player is capable of in Smash Bros., but Sakurai doesn't want to use PvP win/loss ratios for that power ranking for a few reasons. First, he thinks it's kind of demeaning. And for most people, it is. Strings of bad matchmaking can wreck someone's ranking; this happens to a friend of mine in DotA 2 all the time, as he'll get a string of ranked matches with trolls who sabotage his own team and thus he never moves up in the rankings. Second, he doesn't think it's that useful. After all, if someone is ranked 300,000 out of 10,000,000 players, that doesn't necessarily mean that the player won vs. 700,000 people and lost vs. 299,000 people, so it's not accurate.

Therefore, Sakurai figured out a way around both of these problems: instead of ranking players against each other, you give them a "standardized test", so to speak, and rank them based on their scores on that test. And what is the test? Arcade Mode. Adventure Mode. All-Star Mode. Theoretically, Multi-Man Melee or Break the Targets or Home Run Contest, if they are announced.

In this way, everyone is playing against the same test: the single player modes. And, Sakurai is assuming that the skills you'd need in order to excel at the single player modes directly translate to the skills you'd need to excel at PvP. Therefore, by calculating a master score based on all of your performances vs. the computer, the exact same computer that everyone else is also being tested against, he can compare one player's master score against everyone else's master score at the same time in a way that you can't do with PvP (without a massive 10,000,000 player round robin tournament).

This is what allows him to use GSP for online matchmaking. Assuming everyone is taking the same test against the computer in single player modes, everyone's GSP should be indicative of what they are capable of in a general sense, against the computer OR against a live opponent. So, people of similar GSP levels should be well matched against each other online.

It's very easy to see how Sakurai can effectively use GSP to do quality online matchmaking. In fact, this may end up working better than traditional W/L or KDA matchmaking.

This also has the added benefit of incentivizing single player play. After all, many PvP players would only play SSB4 for the online or for live fights (either with friends in the living room or at a tournament). However, by ignoring or neglecting single player modes, your GSP score lowers, and your matchmaking is worse. So, even the best, highest level players have a reason to keep at single player, beating it with non-mains and improving scores with mains, in order to keep their GSP as high as possible, which increases their time with the game.

Wow, only Nintendo (or sakurai, guess we don’t know who is responsible for this) could think of such a convoluted way of measuring Pvp skills. This is without a doubt inferior to any other matchmaking system out there.

 

[Ven447]

I have a feeling Online Mode will still be No items Fox Only and Insert [[Final Destination Variant here]]

 

[Osumnis]

Watch the video again. Matchmaking isn't based on Global Smash Power, there's a hidden system of measuring skill. GSP is just a fun way to compare youself with others.

 

[ChikoLad]

I'm just going to leave this here, and ask the For Glory naysayers how stages are supposed to be incorporated into a VS online randoms setting, using the the exact same rules as typical tournaments. Furthermore, could you imagine if Sakurai had to explain how stage selection like this is done in the Direct itself? It would have been a bore to sit through. This is the SSBWiki article on Tournament legal stages in Melee:

Definitions[edit]
Neutral Stage: A neutral stage is any stage allowed in the initial random select for the first game of a match (i.e. Battlefield).
Banned Stage: A banned stage is any stage that is not allowed either in the initial random select or by choice in games two and three (i.e. Temple). In order to play on a banned stage both players must agree to it.
Available Stage: An available stage is any stage that can be chosen by a player in games two and three. These include all of the neutral stages, but exclude all banned stages. Therefore, all neutral stages are available stages, but not all available stages are neutral. For example, Pokémon Stadium is an available stage that is not a neutral stage.

1-on-1[edit]

• Usually, sets between players are played best 2 out of 3 matches (using 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 for final rounds).
• Double Elimination.
• Each match is played with timed stock, usually 4 (but can be between 3 or 5) lives and 6 to 10 minutes (usually 8).

• In the case that time runs out and both characters have an equal amount of lives, the character with less damage wins the match. If both characters have equal lives and damage, the match must be replayed; Sudden Death is strictly not to be played.

• Items are turned off.
• The first match is played with a Random Stage.

• The random select is comprised of neutral stages:

• Yoshi's Story
• Fountain of Dreams
• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Dream Land (N64)

• Players are given the option to "strike" stages from the random select.

• For the first match, characters are chosen double-blind - at the same time, so that neither player knows his opponent's character beforehand. In practice, this rule is often ignored, but players always reserve the option to force a double-blind pick.
• The loser of the first match (and of successive matches) chooses the next stage, and then the winner chooses his character, and then the loser chooses his character. This series of choices is called slob picks.

• The loser can pick either a neutral stage or a counterpick stage, this list is based on MBR recommended ruleset:

• Pokémon Stadium

• The loser cannot pick any banned stages:

• Big Blue
• Brinstar
• Brinstar Depths
• Corneria
• Flat Zone
• Fourside
• Great Bay
• Green Greens
• Icicle Mountain
• Jungle Japes
• Kongo Jungle
• Kongo Jungle (N64)
• Mushroom Kingdom
• Mushroom Kingdom II
• Mute City
• Onett
• Poké Floats
• Princess Peach's Castle
• Rainbow Cruise
• Temple
• Venom
• Yoshi's Island (pipes)
• Yoshi's Island (N64)

• The loser can also not choose any stage that has already been played earlier that round. This rule is known as "Dave's Stupid Rule," named after Scamp.
• The winner can ban stages from the opponent's selection, except in best-of-5 sets.

2-on-2[edit]

• Rules that apply to singles apply to team tournaments as well.

• Neutral stages (different from singles):

• Yoshi's Story
• Pokémon Stadium
• Battlefield
• Final Destination
• Dream Land (N64)

• Counterpick:

• Kongo Jungle 64

• Banned stages (different from singles):

• Big Blue
• Brinstar
• Brinstar Depths
• Corneria
• Flat Zone
• Fountain of Dreams
• Fourside
• Great Bay
• Green Greens
• Icicle Mountain
• Jungle Japes
• Kongo Jungle
• Mushroom Kingdom
• Mushroom Kingdom II
• Mute City
• Onett
• Poké Floats
• Princess Peach's Castle
• Rainbow Cruise
• Temple
• Venom
• Yoshi's Island (pipes)
• Yoshi's Island (N64)

• Friendly Fire (also called "team attack") is on.
• Players are allowed to steal lives from their teammates by pressing start after they die.

Techniques/Glitches[edit]
In order to prevent degenerate gameplay techniques, many tournaments ban certain exploitations of the game that give one character an unintended and unfair advantage over others.

• Banned glitches

• Freeze Glitch
• Yo-yo glitch (sometimes)
• Name Entry glitch and its derivatives

• Banned Stalling Techniques

• Repeated rising pound
• Repeated Peach Bomber on a wall
• Luigi Ladder

• N.B. The rising pound and Peach Bomber on the wall are only banned if they are being use to stall. Using them to recover is acceptable.
  Controversy[edit]
  Many casual smashers notice that the accepted tournament ruleset demands highly specific conditions under which they would rarely play, and believe that these rules are restrictive and make competitive play less fun. However, most tournament Smashers are of the opinion that the ruleset prevents "degenerate" gameplay, and that this makes competitive play more enriching and fun.
  
  Acknowledging this, many players do argue about specific tournament rules. During the first few years of Smashboards' existence, items were a major point of contention amongst Smashers - generally, East Coast Smashers did not want them used in tournaments, but West Coast Smashers wanted them turned on. Those in favour stated that the use of items required skill and did not reduce the depth of the game, while those against argued that items were unfair because of the element of randomness involved when they were turned on, particularly the unpredictability of their spawning in relation to explosive items such as Bob-ombs and capsules. Eventually, the community reached a consensus that items should be turned off in tournaments, due to the element of randomness.
  
  Another controversial topic is the legality and categorization of stages - debate over which stages should be classified as legal or banned. While there was universal agreement over the banning of some stages, such as Hyrule Temple, other stages were questioned; Final Destination, for instance, has been criticised as giving an unfair advantage to characters with many projectiles, such as Link andFox. Some smashers wanted to reduce the legal stage list to simple stages, and remove all moving and irregular ones, while others believed it was better to to allow all stages that did not foster any unfair advantage to one strategy or character. As of late, there is a generally accepted standard for legal and banned stages, but the lists still vary between tournaments. Competitions in which all stages are permitted are very rare, and are not considered SBR certified.

 

[the smash nerd]

Hahaha WIPING YER BUM WITH or WILL BE REALLY GOOD [For Fun] OR HARD! [For Glory]

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

Does everyone realize this mode is just for practice/ honing your skills? You all realize that it isn't the mode by which all tournaments must be conducted? Listen, I agree, it should have FD *and* BF, it really should, and should simply alternate between the two. But this idea that matching players up online based on skill level and having no-items, competitive stage(s) is not only *not* Sakurai catering to us in ways we only dreamed of, but is somehow some sort of belligerent insult to us? As if he spat in our faces? How much crack have you people been smoking?

I agree we should contact him with requests for Battle Field, and believe we should absolutely only request battlefield. Given the purpose of this mode, there is no reason to send him the convoluted itinerary list of criteria that must be met for a stage to be 'competitive' and demand all of these be included in FG mode. Come on, we can't even come to an agreement on this matter ourselves and it's been 15 years. The mode is simple, stipped-down, pick up and practice against other players to *prepare* for actual tournaments. FD, BF, and optional 1v1, that's all it needs to be, all we should want, and all we should ask for. If we ask for too much, he'll ignore us.

We're not directing and creating this video game, he is, show some respect. He went out of his way on several accounts to cater to competitive players, and it's been nothing but piss and moan. He doesn't have to do anything for us what-so-ever, he could have long since went full 'Mario Party' on this series, but hasn't. If I remember correctly, aggregate reviews on the games have Brawl as the highest rated of the three, and has the greatest amount of sales. What does that tell you? The global gaming community and media aren't judging these games on the same standards we are, and despite that, Sakurai has continued to enable and foster tournament-rich conditions and mechanics into the series. We're lucky we even *so much* as got Melee. If it weren't for the integrity and respect for the competitive elements of the series Sakurai has, if he cared only about pushing units and lazy, chump production, we would have "Super Smash Party" for the gamecube, a new title every year or two, and it would never have went back. Be thankful.

Noting that competitive is more than just FD ( and BF for that matter ) isn't "spitting in his face," dude calm down. Also you contradict yourself, how can you "hone your skills" when you will be missing out on a major part of the competitive scene.

I mean play with Dr. Mario and I went to a Melee tourney, almost everyone I played against crossed out FD. And even when it was my turn to pick the stage, 'cause I lost, your opponent still gets one cross-out. Guess what it was, FD. So this mode by your definition fails its purpose.

Guys, this isn't difficult; you're over-complicating things.

Global Smash Power is being designed to act as a barometer of what a player is capable of in Smash Bros., but Sakurai doesn't want to use PvP win/loss ratios for that power ranking for a few reasons. First, he thinks it's kind of demeaning. And for most people, it is. Strings of bad matchmaking can wreck someone's ranking; this happens to a friend of mine in DotA 2 all the time, as he'll get a string of ranked matches with trolls who sabotage his own team and thus he never moves up in the rankings. Second, he doesn't think it's that useful. After all, if someone is ranked 300,000 out of 10,000,000 players, that doesn't necessarily mean that the player won vs. 700,000 people and lost vs. 299,000 people, so it's not accurate.

Therefore, Sakurai figured out a way around both of these problems: instead of ranking players against each other, you give them a "standardized test", so to speak, and rank them based on their scores on that test. And what is the test? Arcade Mode. Adventure Mode. All-Star Mode. Theoretically, Multi-Man Melee or Break the Targets or Home Run Contest, if they are announced.

In this way, everyone is playing against the same test: the single player modes. And, Sakurai is assuming that the skills you'd need in order to excel at the single player modes directly translate to the skills you'd need to excel at PvP. Therefore, by calculating a master score based on all of your performances vs. the computer, the exact same computer that everyone else is also being tested against, he can compare one player's master score against everyone else's master score at the same time in a way that you can't do with PvP (without a massive 10,000,000 player round robin tournament).

This is what allows him to use GSP for online matchmaking. Assuming everyone is taking the same test against the computer in single player modes, everyone's GSP should be indicative of what they are capable of in a general sense, against the computer OR against a live opponent. So, people of similar GSP levels should be well matched against each other online.

It's very easy to see how Sakurai can effectively use GSP to do quality online matchmaking. In fact, this may end up working better than traditional W/L or KDA matchmaking.

This also has the added benefit of incentivizing single player play. After all, many PvP players would only play SSB4 for the online or for live fights (either with friends in the living room or at a tournament). However, by ignoring or neglecting single player modes, your GSP score lowers, and your matchmaking is worse. So, even the best, highest level players have a reason to keep at single player, beating it with non-mains and improving scores with mains, in order to keep their GSP as high as possible, which increases their time with the game.

Is that fair though? That a person can't get the enjoyment out of a game (s)he wants because the game forces them to play a part of the game they may not enjoy that much.

I'm just going to leave this here, and ask the For Glory naysayers how stages are supposed to be incorporated into a VS online randoms setting, using the the exact same rules as typical tournaments. Furthermore, could you imagine if Sakurai had to explain how stage selection like this is done in the Direct itself? It would have been a bore to sit through. This is the SSBWiki article on Tournament legal stages in Melee:

Could put in neutral stages, perhaps with a low chance for counter-pick stages (or maybe not). How hard is it to say "Upon release, For Glory mode will only contain the Final Destination stages. But in the coming months after release - I will be incorporating other stages that are deemed competitively viable by the competitive scene (or whatever)."

 

[Overtaken]

Noting that competitive is more than just FD ( and BF for that matter ) isn't "spitting in his face," dude calm down. Also you contradict yourself, how can you "hone your skills" when you will be missing out on a major part of the competitive scene.

I mean play with Dr. Mario and I went to a Melee tourney, almost everyone I played against crossed out FD. And even when it was my turn to pick the stage, 'cause I lost, your opponent still gets one cross-out. Guess what it was, FD. So this mode by your definition fails it's purpose.

I'm afraid what you're asking for is untenable at best, if not impossible. It's not the point of online mode. Because I suppose now you think we need to be able to match host, and be able to select precisely which stages we want to fight on. Oh, but then what an insult it would be! Because we want to be able to master specific MUs on specific stages, so we have to add that feature. Oh, but how mad we will be when we're trying to sharpen our Sheik skills against Falco on Smashville, and your opponent is a Falco scrub 9 times out of 10 and it isn't helping you any. So now we have to have individual ranking by character. And even then, after getting your parameters just the way you want it, you have to wade through endless waiting time for people eligible for your specific match who will actually accept, to maybe play your dream match once and hope they stick around and humor you as your personal trainer while you perfect your shine combos.

There is already a game mode for what you want, it's called friend match. Friend up some fellow tourney players and you can set up matches however you want. But it isn't the purpose for 'for glory'. It's for serious or ambitious players who can't live at EVO to get generally conditioned in a reasonably common/generic competitive environment, and keeping them separate from the filthy casuals.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

@PizzaWenisaur

Certainly, not all of the detractors think is an insult but there are ones, noisy ones, who believe this is a jab against them. Shows how some people can't never be pleased.

 

[Deleted member]

The thing is, traditional matchmaking, such as DotA 2 or LoL isn't based on W/L or KDA, its based on a hidden MMR (Match Making Rating) which is calculated based on WHO you've beaten, not how many times you have won, but who you beat every time that you win.

I'll try to explain both, why the single player GSP is not a good measure of skill and 2 why MMR is a good way of measuring skill in a "perfect" numbers case.



First, about your example of GSP, I understand perfectly your opinion and arguments about why it is a "good" way to measure skill. It mimics the system us humans have set for our education, which is the most important part of "measuring" someone that we as a whole have. Standardized tests and exams are things seen in every professional aspect, yet they are almost never the "best" way to test, the problem is, all other ways are impractical in a real world scenario. You have 14 year old kids still in school who know Astro Physics, yet they can't tell you who won the revolutionary war of 1956 (making stuff up) and because of this they aren't passing the "tests" as well as other kids who don't have said Astro Physics knowledge.

Now, obviously the problem is that the test is not only on Astro Physics, but thats were the impracticality comes. You can't start giving out thousands of tests on different topics to everyone in order to judge their skills, you have to have a standard and sometimes that standard cannot gauge specifics well enough.

In GSP's case, in single player events and challenges you cannot judge a persons ability to read, bait, improvise and remain unpredictable. These things are impossible for the PC to gauge. Sure you can test them on things like game knowledge, execution, tech skill and overall creativity with the game engine, but we all know that isn't enough to make a good player. Someone with good game knowledge and tech skill will probably be good enough to compete, but if he is lacking all of the mind skills necessary for high level of play he probably won't be able to triumph. Then we have the other spectrum, someone who is completely new to the game and as such has no tech skill or game knowledge yet, but he is incredibly adept at video games and is used to playing competitively at a higher level of mind skill and will probably be placed with the bottom of the player pool where he will probably not be faced with enough challenge.

One thing to note is that if you stop playing solo, then GSP will remain the same theoretically and you will never move away from your current pool of players you can be placed against, so someone who fails the GSP test the first time could never take it again and "pub-stomp" for the rest of his Smash 4 career.




Now, moving on to why MMR is a good way to rank people into groups. MMR is not dependant on W/L as you seem to believe, instead MMR depends on who you beat. How does this work? Well normally everyone starts out as an equal (normally at 1500 MMR, at least for LoL, DotA and WoW). Now you also have a hidden "confidence" level which represents how much "confidence" the game has on your current MMR. The less confidence the machine has on your number, the more points you can win/lose per match. Normally the machine will start with a very low confidence on your MMR since that 1500 is the standard starting point and it has no idea where you should be placed. As you lose or win, your MMR will start skyrocketing, but with every game the game will gain more confidence on the MMR its placing you at. If you start winning too much, the game will start placing you with much higher rated opponents, if you keep defeating said opponents the game will start losing confidence because it will think that if you are beating much higher rated played then you should be placed higher, and thus, losing confidence makes you climb faster. The same thing happens if you lose too much, the game will start placing you against opponents with much lower MMR than you have, if you keep losing against those opponents then the game will lose confidence in your MMR, thinking that you should be placed lower than what you are.

If on the other hand you start winning many games, but then the game places you 3 or 4 matches against much higher rated opponents and you lose all 3 or 4, it will understand that your MMR should be in between what you have now and that MMR of those opponents that defeated you. It will then gain more confidence in your current placement which means that wins will be worth less per game.

Why does this work? Well because it is always measuring you against other opponents. It isn't basing you on number of wins or losses but on who you beat. Chances are that if M2K beats Ally, Ken and HungryBox most of the games they play, and all 3 of those beat ADHD and you beat M2K, then you should probably be able to beat ADHD, maybe not Ally, Ken and HungryBox, which is why the game will first test you against people higher than M2K before letting you advance, if you lose against the players above M2K then the game will stop placing you with people much higher than you and start placing you with people around what it believes your own level is (in this case Ally, Ken and HungryBox), if you beat them all then you would climb to M2K's level and since you couldn't beat the players above M2K you have theoretically reached the perfect spot for yourself. If on the other hand you were much better than the players above M2K then the system would have completely jumped Ally, HungryBox and Ken and you would have just swooped past them when you defeated the other players. If on the other hand (3 hands what?) you were worse than Ally, Ken and HungryBox then as soon as you were placed against them and lost you would be lowered to ADHD's level, if you kept losing then the machine would lose confidence on you, start placing you against opponents much lower than yourself and if you kept losing you would then freefall to the bottom.



I hope my post was understandable. If you prefer I can give you actual math if that is easier to understand.



Anyways about Sakurai, he didn't say GSP was going to be used to match players, he said "You should also know that though there won't rankings in online multiplayer there will be some sort of matchmaking going on based on skill level".

That was said exactly after he finished explaining what GSP was. If they were to be matched by GSP he would have probably just said: "We will match players by using this new system"

If you guys want to learn more about how an MMR system actually works, check the DotA 2 blog post on it.

It is different, since it is, after all, a MOBA, but the basics still apply, and I would be delighted to see some sort of MMR system in place. But I don't think it should be based entirely off of your W/L ratio, but also your general performance, among other things.

It would allow for a much more accurate MMR system than just basing it off of your W/L ratio, because you might go on a sudden losing streak and be placed in a lower percentile of skill, where you're inevitably going to just stomp your way back to where you once were. Measuring how many kills you get in a match, how much damage you dealt, how much damage you took, etc., should all factor in, so for an example, even if you lose a match, but still played very well, you wouldn't lose as much MMR as you would if you were to just lose and do average.

IMO it would make for an accurate and fair MMR system that wouldn't cause skill discrepancies to be frequent and people would typically be matched up against opponents on their their skill level, unlike where some 11-year old at his cousins house would suddenly be matched up with HungryBox, which could be compared to a Russian pubber in DotA being matched up against Dendi.

 

[Chiroz]

If you guys want to learn more about how an MMR system actually works, check the DotA 2 blog post on it.

It is different, since it is, after all, a MOBA, but the basics still apply, and I would be delighted to see some sort of MMR system in place. But I don't think it should be based entirely off of your W/L ratio, but also your general performance, among other things.

It would allow for a much more accurate MMR system than just basing it off of your W/L ratio, because you might go on a sudden losing streak and be placed in a lower percentile of skill, where you're inevitably going to just stomp your way back to where you once were. Measuring how many kills you get in a match, how much damage you dealt, how much damage you took, etc., should all factor in, so for an example, even if you lose a match, but still played very well, you wouldn't lose as much MMR as you would if you were to just lose and do average.

IMO it would make for an accurate and fair MMR system that wouldn't cause skill discrepancies to be frequent and people would typically be matched up against opponents on their their skill level, unlike where some 11-year old at his cousins house would suddenly be matched up with HungryBox, which could be compared to a Russian pubber in DotA being matched up against Dendi.

Yea that article also explains what I said on my post. Although apparently DotA 2 claims to take into account your performance. While I understand your desire to do that, not only do I doubt DotA 2 doing it themselves but I doubt its a good system.

Why? Well because it leads to players abusing it.

Does dealing damage count for better performance? Better pick only damage heroes. How about healing? Well which one "quantifies" the largest, damage or healing? Pick that one. Tanking? Well just build all hp and armor and dive into the enemy team, that number of damage you took will go up regardless if you are doing a good job or not.

There is already too many wrong things with how people view "support" classes and "control" heroes, where people never want to play as them because they only want the "glory" of the kill or the fame of being the "carry". If you add a number that emphasizes that you SHOULD be the carry then it makes it worse.

I understand your idea and I think if people weren't assholes it could work, but as humanity stands, measuring "performance" on damage/kills/healing/tanking is like telling the basketball players that whomever holds the ball the longest gets paid more. At that point normally people think: "who cares that I could pass the ball and score a point, I'll just hold it to get more money!"

Judging on assists might be a better route, but then what stops both teams from reaching an accord and just suiciding and giving everyone a lot of assists to boost their MMR.

Unless you want to do it based on how much better you did than your opponents. Judging performance by how much more assists you have than your opponents do. That might be a way, but normally when you lose a game, you don't have as many assists as the enemy team, which renders this point null.



I don't know if you understood my point but basically in a game where you are teamed up with 4 random people, if there is anything that can give you an edge to rise faster then everyone will just want to pick/get that and as such trolling would be much more widespread. Not only that but the overall community would be much more bicker and you would also have people who would not help the team because "If my record is 4-0 I won't lose any points since I already have 4 kills I won't participate in any team fights until the game ends, because I either win points if you guys can win without me or stay put if you guys lose without me". Basically there are all kinds of different abuses and you can be sure people will do them if it means a reward.

This is why its better to have a common goal everyone wants to participate in instead of individual ones. IE: Victory.



Anyways this topic isn't about MOBAs its about Smash and Smash is a single player or doubles game and, in the case of one player, having individual goals isn't a bad thing. The MMR could judge you on how many stocks you managed to take before dying, how much damage you did, how quickly you beat your opponent or were beaten, etc. and it would be a good thing to further gauge someone's skill level.

 

[Deleted member]

Yea that article also explains what I said on my post. Although apparently DotA 2 claims to take into account your performance. While I understand your desire to do that, not only do I doubt DotA 2 doing it themselves but I doubt its a good system.

Why? Well because it leads to players abusing it.

Does dealing damage count for better performance? Better pick only damage heroes. How about healing? Well which one "quantifies" the largest, damage or healing? Pick that one. Tanking? Well just build all hp and armor and dive into the enemy team, that number of damage you took will go up regardless if you are doing a good job or not.

There is already too many wrong things with how people view "support" classes and "control" heroes, where people never want to play as them because they only want the "glory" of the kill or the fame of being the "carry". If you add a number that emphasizes that you SHOULD be the carry then it makes it worse.

I understand your idea and I think if people weren't *******s it could work, but as humanity stands, measuring "performance" on damage/kills/healing/tanking is like telling the basketball players that whomever holds the ball the longest gets paid more. At that point normally people think: "who cares that I could pass the ball and score a point, I'll just hold it to get more money!"

Judging on assists might be a better route, but then what stops both teams from reaching an accord and just suiciding and giving everyone a lot of assists to boost their MMR.

Unless you want to do it based on how much better you did than your opponents. Judging performance by how much more assists you have than your opponents do. That might be a way, but normally when you lose a game, you don't have as many assists as the enemy team, which renders this point null.



I don't know if you understood my point but basically in a game where you are teamed up with 4 random people, if there is anything that can give you an edge to rise faster then everyone will just want to pick/get that and as such trolling would be much more widespread. Not only that but the overall community would be much more bicker and you would also have people who would not help the team because "If my record is 4-0 I won't lost any points since I already have 4 kills I won't participate in any team fights until the game ends, because I either win points if you guys can win without me or stay put". All kinds of different abuses.

This is why its better to have a common goal everyone wants to participate in instead of individual ones. IE: Victory.



Anyways this topic isn't about MOBAs its about Smash and Smash is a single player or doubles game and in the case of one player having individual goals isn't a bad thing. The MMR could judge you on how many stocks you managed to take before dying, how much damage you did, how quickly you beat your opponent or where beaten, etc. and it would be a good thing to further gauge someone's skill level.

I think you misread my post honestly. I'm not trying to say that Smash should have an MMR system EXACTLY like DotA, they're two completely different beasts (also MMR abusing is already rampant in DotA, it's one of the reasons I rarely play ranked) and I'm not AT ALL talking about DotA, but Smash, and using DotA's MMR system as somewhat of an example, so sorry if I didn't make that clear. And what you're suggesting in your last paragraph is also along the lines of what I'm suggesting.

You might say that losing a match would cost you 25 MMR, but doing well in that match (like, again, how many kills you got before dying, or how much damage you dealt out) would bring it down to only a 13 MMR loss. While you can cushion the blow of losing somewhat, it needs to be so you will also never gain MMR from a lost match. You can lose but deal out 15 hundred damage and get 6 kills as Little Mac, but you still lose MMR regardless, and thus your skill bracket inches closer to going down, but not as much if you were to take 5 hundred damage and self-destruct 3 times as Pikachu. And maybe the MMR loss could also be based around how well you placed too.

But I will give you that it would be hard to do the inverse for winning. I mean, say you could win through sheer dumb luck but do horribly in the match, but you still gain MMR. Now that wouldn't be very fair, would it? You didn't do well, but you still climb in the ranks in spite of that. I trust that the devs will make a good invisible ranking system, but I'm just throwing these hypothetical possibilities out there.

 

[pickle962]

So we get the option to have NO items and NO gimmicky stages when playing with strangers online, yet people still complain? Is the smash crowd unpleaseable or what? First its Melee vs Brawl (understandable for the vanilla version of Brawl SUCKS from a competitive stand point), then there's people who diss on Project M (can't figure that one out for one thing it removes TRIPPING), and there were people who booed the wii fit trainer when she/he/it was revealed alongside megaman and villager. (I don't care much for that character, but don't go wasting my time on the net whining about its inclusion) and now the casuals and hardcores are at each others throats once more with the reveal of for fun and for glory mode?

 

[Chiroz]

I think you misread my post honestly. I'm not trying to say that Smash should have an MMR system EXACTLY like DotA, they're two completely different beasts (also MMR abusing is already rampant in DotA, it's one of the reasons I rarely play ranked) and I'm not AT ALL talking about DotA, but Smash, and using DotA's MMR system as somewhat of an example, so sorry if I didn't make that clear. And what you're suggesting in your last paragraph is also along the lines of what I'm suggesting.

You might say that losing a match would cost you 25 MMR, but doing well in that match (like, again, how many kills you got before dying, or how much damage you dealt out) would bring it down to only a 13 MMR loss. While you can cushion the blow of losing somewhat, it needs to be so you will also never gain MMR from a lost match. You can lose but deal out 15 hundred damage and get 6 kills as Little Mac, but you still lose MMR regardless, and thus your skill bracket inches closer to going down, but not as much if you were to take 5 hundred damage and self-destruct 3 times as Pikachu. And maybe the MMR loss could also be based around how well you placed too.

But I will give you that it would be hard to do the inverse for winning. I mean, say you could win through sheer dumb luck but do horribly in the match, but you still gain MMR. Now that wouldn't be very fair, would it? You didn't do well, but you still climb in the ranks in spite of that. I trust that the devs will make a good invisible ranking system, but I'm just throwing these hypothetical possibilities out there.

Yea I understood what you were saying, I was merely pointing out that IMO that model is bad for a game like DotA solely because its a team of 5 random strangers, its like putting a banana in between 5 monkeys but telling them that if they play nice they might get 2 bananas each. They would rather all fight over the banana than actually strive to gain the 2 bananas. But I can see how for a game like Smash it would probably work pretty well.

I actually fully expect Nintendo to do an MMR system. I mean, most of the best e-sport games use MMR, so I if Nintendo wanted to take an example from anyone it would probably be from one of them.

 

[Deleted member]

Yea I understood what you were saying, I was merely pointing out that IMO that model is bad for a game like DotA solely because its a team of 5 random strangers, its like putting a banana in between 5 monkeys but telling them that if they play nice they might get 2 bananas each. They would rather all fight over the banana than actually strive to gain the 2 bananas. But I can see how for a game like Smash it would probably work pretty well.

I actually fully expect Nintendo to do an MMR system. I mean, most of the best e-sport games use MMR, so I if Nintendo wanted to take an example from anyone it would probably be from one of them.

Don't worry, DotA 2's system isn't like what I'm suggesting for Smash, because W/L ratio is still the deciding factor, and it's extremely rare to see someone's MMR go down or up even if they win or lose, respectively. Plus, we don't even KNOW what matters when it comes to measuring your individual performance, so it's hard to abuse that, and the community is intelligent enough to know that winning is the most important thing when it comes down to it, so they still tend towards working together.

But enough about DotA, let's talk about Smash!

 

[PKBeam]

One thing to say.

I'll miss those great competitive matches I had on Brawl.

 

[Pokemon Trainer Alan]

One thing to say.

I'll miss those great competitive matches I had on Brawl.

brawl? competitive? charming. All you saw online was fox,falco,snake,meta knight,pikachu(the noobs).

 

[LancerStaff]

brawl? competitive? charming. All you saw online was fox,falco,snake,meta knight,pikachu(the noobs).

Probably talking about friend matches...

 

[ChikoLad]

Yeah, Brawl is fun online when you play with friends. I've had some pretty intense, raw matches with people I've met here who are not too far away.

 

[Pokemon Trainer Alan]

Probably talking about friend matches...

oh then i sincerely apologies for my rudeness.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

I'm afraid what you're asking for is untenable at best, if not impossible. It's not the point of online mode. Because I suppose now you think we need to be able to match host, and be able to select precisely which stages we want to fight on. Oh, but then what an insult it would be! Because we want to be able to master specific MUs on specific stages, so we have to add that feature. Oh, but how mad we will be when we're trying to sharpen our Sheik skills against Falco on Smashville, and your opponent is a Falco scrub 9 times out of 10 and it isn't helping you any. So now we have to have individual ranking by character. And even then, after getting your parameters just the way you want it, you have to wade through endless waiting time for people eligible for your specific match who will actually accept, to maybe play your dream match once and hope they stick around and humor you as your personal trainer while you perfect your shine combos.

There is already a game mode for what you want, it's called friend match. Friend up some fellow tourney players and you can set up matches however you want. But it isn't the purpose for 'for glory'. It's for serious or ambitious players who can't live at EVO to get generally conditioned in a reasonably common/generic competitive environment, and keeping them separate from the filthy casuals.

What are you talking about, I think you've misunderstood my post. It's more than just match-ups. The fact is you claimed it's a place to "hone your skills" - but the problem is playing as Little Mac on Final Destination is a lot different than on Battlefield. Besides if this is for balance then it's imbalanced to only choose a stage that favors specific types of characters.

Also you didn't read my other post.

"Could put in neutral stages, perhaps with a low chance for counter-pick stages (or maybe not). How hard is it to say 'Upon release, For Glory mode will only contain the Final Destination stages. But in the coming months after release - I will be incorporating other stages that are deemed competitively viable by the competitive scene (or whatever).' "

I'm not asking for lobbies, not asking for tourney style stage picking, not asking for a "personal trainer." All I want for him to do is put in other competitive stages - that's it. It can still choose randomly - in fact I prefer it too. How hard would it be to do that? Honestly.

 

[ChikoLad]

What are you talking about, I think you've misunderstood my post. It's more than just match-ups. The fact is you claimed it's a place to "hone your skills" - but the problem is playing as Little Mac on Final Destination is a lot different than on Battlefield. Besides if this is for balance then it's imbalanced to only choose a stage that favors specific types of characters.

Also you didn't read my other post.

"Could put in neutral stages, perhaps with a low chance for counter-pick stages (or maybe not). How hard is it to say 'Upon release, For Glory mode will only contain the Final Destination stages. But in the coming months after release - I will be incorporating other stages that are deemed competitively viable by the competitive scene (or whatever).' "

I'm not asking for lobbies, not asking for tourney style stage picking, not asking for a "personal trainer." All I want for him to do is put in other competitive stages - that's it. It can still choose randomly - in fact I prefer it too. How hard would it be to do that? Honestly.

"For Glory" is not for the tourney players to begin with, it's just for people who want a basic match, and Final Destination is the most basic stage, and you can get in with little hassle. If you want to practice on other stages, go to training mode. If you want to fight people on other stages with your own rulesets, make some friends.

And the game is not even out yet, we don't know how the balancing will be. Rosalina, Little Mac, Mega Man, Greninja and Villager all have effective counters for projectiles, so it's clear some thought is being put into this. Veterans are also receiving very noticeable buffs.

Honestly, I really feel people should be thankful that there is even a slight bit of consideration for competitive players, because compared to the overall Smash consumer base, the tourney players are a TINY community. Heck, there's only 135,174 members on this site, which supposedly houses a majority of the competitive community who use the standard rules. The Smash Bros franchise has sold 24.73 million, and Smash 64, the worst selling game in the series, has sold 5.55 million copies. No matter what way you slice it, the competitive community for Smash is tiny compared to the overall consumer base. There is no way Sakurai and his team is going to do what you are asking for. I mean seriously, you expect him to have plans for post-release content at this stage? Even forgetting the fact that he has said he has no plans for that, expecting him to is stupid. Let him get the bulk of the project out of the way first, and when he game releases, maybe he will make some changes. Let's not try to turn him into a Capcom employee.

 

[Pazzo.]

With all the grief that Sakurai gets for all the "MAKE SMASH MORE COMPETITIVE!!" The competitive scene is VERY small compared to the casuals. So ANY effort towards us is great!

#ThankyouSakurai.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

"For Glory" is not for the tourney players to begin with, it's just for people who want a basic match, and Final Destination is the most basic stage, and you can get in with little hassle. If you want to practice on other stages, go to training mode. If you want to fight people on other stages with your own rulesets, make some friends.

And the game is not even out yet, we don't know how the balancing will be. Rosalina, Little Mac, Mega Man, Greninja and Villager all have effective counters for projectiles, so it's clear some thought is being put into this. Veterans are also receiving very noticeable buffs.

Honestly, I really feel people should be thankful that there is even a slight bit of consideration for competitive players, because compared to the overall Smash consumer base, the tourney players are a TINY community. Heck, there's only 135,174 members on this site, which supposedly houses a majority of the competitive community who use the standard rules. The Smash Bros franchise has sold 24.73 million, and Smash 64, the worst selling game in the series, has sold 5.55 million copies. No matter what way you slice it, the competitive community for Smash is tiny compared to the overall consumer base. There is no way Sakurai and his team is going to do what you are asking for. I mean seriously, you expect him to have plans for post-release content at this stage? Even forgetting the fact that he has said he has no plans for that, expecting him to is stupid. Let him get the bulk of the project out of the way first, and when he game releases, maybe he will make some changes. Let's not try to turn him into a Capcom employee.

1) Essentially, your argument comes down to For Glory mode being fine because it's designed the way it is. I think a more logical statement would be that For Glory and For Fun comes down to the distinction between the competitive and non-competitive scene. Honestly, given the name and the details surrounding the modes - it wouldn't make sense for one side to appeal to the general attitude of the non-competitive world and the other to target a very specific section of the competitive scene.

2) I'm really getting tired of that "make some friends" arguments. It's seriously dumb. In that case, this game shouldn't even have online because people could just make some friends. Some friends who magically don't have any time conflicts whenever you want to play - oh and make sure you perfectly select your friends so that you can experience diverse characters and play-styles.

3) Given the nature of Smash in general, I highly doubt that all these characters would be perfectly balanced and equal on stages with and without platforms. It's not just projectiles - I know Little Mac has good projectile countermeasures that's part of Final Destination only problem. I can see this mode favoring him for example ( remember his aerial moves have reduced damage - so platforms forces those aerial encounters more).

4) Sakurai already admitted he isn't opposed to patches. Also wouldn't it be smart to notice these problems now rather than later. I'm sure you would rather fix a problem ( or at least code in order to make fixing it easier ) before the product is released.

Sakurai:
" I think the patches are an important tool to maintain the balance of a game, once this last released. As you surely already know, the reputation of some characters, who are considered weak or powerful, is something to which players are very interested on the internet. "

If he is willing to do this for characters - why wouldn't he do it for stage selections, which would be way easier.

 

[ChikoLad]

1) Essentially, your argument comes down to For Glory mode being fine because it's designed the way it is. I think a more logical statement would be that For Glory and For Fun comes down to the distinction between the competitive and non-competitive scene. Honestly, given the name and the details surrounding the modes - it wouldn't make sense for one side to appeal to the general attitude of the non-competitive world and the other to target a very specific section of the competitive scene.

2) I'm really getting tired of that "make some friends" arguments. It's seriously dumb. In that case, this game shouldn't even have online because people could just make some friends. Some friends who magically don't have any time conflicts whenever you want to play - oh and make sure you perfectly select your friends so that you can experience diverse characters and play-styles.

3) Given the nature of Smash in general, I highly doubt that all these characters would be perfectly balanced and equal on stages with and without platforms. It's not just projectiles - I know Little Mac has good projectile countermeasures that's part of Final Destination only problem. I can see this mode favoring him for example ( remember his aerial moves have reduced damage - so platforms forces those aerial encounters more).

4) Sakurai already admitted he isn't opposed to patches. Also wouldn't it be smart to notice these problems now rather than later. I'm sure you would rather fix a problem ( or at least code in order to make fixing it easier ) before the product is released.

Sakurai:
" I think the patches are an important tool to maintain the balance of a game, once this last released. As you surely already know, the reputation of some characters, who are considered weak or powerful, is something to which players are very interested on the internet. "

If he is willing to do this for characters - why wouldn't he do it for stage selections, which would be way easier.

1) For Glory isn't for tourney players. If it was, you wouldn't be complaining like you are. You have deluded yourself into believing it's meant for tourney players, and that it's bad at that, but it was not specifically designed for the tourney scene in the first place. Playing with items off is something some people just like to do. I play with items off all of the time, but I have never been to a tournament.

2) By make some friends, I didn't exclusively mean local friends. Haven't you seen the 3DS Friend Code exchange thread here, or the NNID exchange thread?

3) I doubt they will be perfectly balanced, but it really doesn't matter for For Glory, as it is not meant for the tourney scene. The only reason why the tourney scene takes the stage list so seriously is because of the stakes involved. For Glory has no stakes, it's just the more raw, straight up form of playing against randoms, which is a whole lot more than what Brawl offered.

4) I know that, I never said he was opposed to it, but planning patches from the beginning of development is something no Nintendo game will see happen. What he said implies he's going to look at post-release feedback and discuss and possibly make changes from there.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

1) For Glory isn't for tourney players. If it was, you wouldn't be complaining like you are. You have deluded yourself into believing it's meant for tourney players, and that it's bad at that, but it was not specifically designed for the tourney scene in the first place. Playing with items off is something some people just like to do. I play with items off all of the time, but I have never been to a tournament.

2) By make some friends, I didn't exclusively mean local friends. Haven't you seen the 3DS Friend Code exchange thread here, or the NNID exchange thread?

3) I doubt they will be perfectly balanced, but it really doesn't matter for For Glory, as it is not meant for the tourney scene. The only reason why the tourney scene takes the stage list so seriously is because of the stakes involved. For Glory has no stakes, it's just the more raw, straight up form of playing against randoms, which is a whole lot more than what Brawl offered.

4) I know that, I never said he was opposed to it, but planning patches from the beginning of development is something no Nintendo game will see happen. What he said implies he's going to look at post-release feedback and discuss and possibly make changes from there.

This number thing is super efficient.

1 + 3) Perhaps, another way would make more sense to you. How I see it right now, For Glory mode has a problem that should be relatively easy to fix. If it's left as is, you'll have a group that is dissatisfied with the results. If it actually is fixed you can have much more people feeling content with the mode. Since the "problem" is easy to fix, and fixing it won't break or mess up anything in the game, why not do it?

You can appeal both to the competitive and competitive-tourney player in one go. If you did, For Glory mode would be a better mode for competitive players because it would do a better job of catching all the competitive players than before. Besides, I doubt competitive non-tourney players would object to having Battlefield and other stages to play on in For Glory mode.

You can call me deluded, I really don't care. But you can't argue that For Glory isn't aimed at competitive - the dichotomy it has with For Fun mode itself argues against that.

2) My point is still valid with online friends also. However, I admit I did stress offline friends.

4) Even if you don't plan on actually doing patches you should plan for them. Unless you want to have to do something really weird like Nintendo with Skyward Sword when they made people download a channel just to fix a game breaking glitch. As a game developer it would be wise to code in the beginning so you can make relatively quick changes later. And as such look into what people have issue with the game currently to see what you might have to fix in the future.

Why are you so opposed to him adding a few more stages to the selection - not even making a Battlefield version of all the stages but literally make it so the game randomly chooses between, I don't know, like the 5-ish stages that will probably be deemed competitively viable.

 

[ChikoLad]

1+3) But the group "dissatisfied" (who I assume you mean to be tourney players) finds For Glory irrelevant. For Glory is not being used to host tournaments. "With Anyone" mode never was going to be. I've seen what tourney players are saying about this mode, and they all say that it's fine for what it is, but if they want to play with tourney rules online, they'll set up groups of friends.

Literally all For Glory is for is for the kind of scenario when you wake up on a lazy day and decide "gee, I think I'll play a few rounds of Smash with some relatively skilled players". That's it. You select "For Glory", you get put in a lobby, you pick your character, and then you're playing on FD (or a variant). Quick, simple, easy. Nobody wants to play online with randoms and deal with arguing over which stages should be used, or dealing with counter-picking or anything like that, especially since hosts can be slow. When you're playing with randoms, the specifics aren't an issue.

"For Fun" is for people who want to play for ****s and giggles, For Glory is for people who want to play more serious matches quickly, but it's not exclusively for tourney players, even if many of them will probably use it. It should also be noted that the tourney scene in Japan almost always uses FD, and it's likely Sakurai based the decision off of that.

And I wasn't arguing that "For Glory" wasn't competitive. If you want to be really technical, For Fun is also competitive, as it's still a competition to see who can win in every match.

2) You say it as if you really are incapable of making friends or something. But you really have no excuse for not being able to find people to play with if you visit this site, because you can bet that the majority of people on this site will be playing Smash 4 all day every day as soon as it comes out. If you can't find people to play with, that's your problem, not Sakurai's, because the majority of tourney players (seeing as that's the example of player you seem most concerned with) will have someone to play with, be they offline or online. Heck, the very reason I joined this website was so I could make friends in preparation for Smash, and within my first few days being here, I already found someone, and even played Brawl with them, and I am still building up a bunch of people to play with.

4) He probably has planned for patches. I don't know why you even bring that up, that's not exactly something he would disclose, as it involves the nitty gritty of the game code, and explaining how the FPS would work was already considered "too technical for some" in his eyes. Coming out and saying "yeah this game is gonna have a bunch of patches because we need to fix a bunch of stuff but we couldn't before release" is synonymous with saying "our game isn't finished but we're selling it full price anyway". When the game comes out, he will take notes (or whoever he leaves in charge).

I'm not opposed to him adding one or two stages. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing every stage get a Battlefield form. But you're blowing it up to be a bigger issue than it is. Remember, it's not a tourney scene, it's a training ground for ALL players. Even if it is uber-unbalanced to have FD only, winning while disadvantaged is only a testament to your skill as a player. In that sense, the extra pressure from a disadvantage could help push players to try harder, and that in turn could benefit tourney players, especially since there is no money stakes involved like in an actual tournament.

 

[PKBeam]

brawl? competitive? charming. All you saw online was fox,falco,snake,meta knight,pikachu(the noobs).

There was this really good fox main on with anyone mode. We had fun on BF and SV no items. Now it's all goooooone.