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

[OptimistNic]

If scrubs are going to whine over the loss of platforms, I seriously suggest they adapt and change their metagame.

Some things don't last forever. If nothing changed there would be no innovation.

 

[thesage]

I really hope that this uses stocks. Time would just be a giant campfest.

 

[PKBeam]

If scrubs are going to whine over the loss of platforms,

Some people want to have a good competitive battle.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

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.

--------------------------------------------
I'm confused. Never said For Glory should be used to host tourneys. In fact almost none ( no fighting games I know ) host tournaments online seriously. In fact tourney rules would hurt For Glory more than not. But adding more "competitive" stages isn't the same as tourney rules which people fail to realize. As some said before, For Glory should be to hone skills. In which case, this would help it achieve that better. Tourney rules is way more than just the neutral stages you can choose from. Also never said hosts.

When I used the term competitive I thought you would intuitively know what it meant - because why would I use it if I was talking about both spectrum of Smash players? Once again you missed the point ( its like my catch phrase ). My point was that if he changed the stages he could make a larger chunk of competitive players happy at once. Think about it, those people who jump in for a quick serious match aren't gonna care if they happen to play on more than just Final Destination. Those who will play it a lot will. If you can have a quick solution to make both sides happy why not seek it. Unless those people you said For Glory is targeted at would be unhappy with more than just Final Destination. My point is even if it isn't targeted at tourney players it should be done - doing this doesn't make it "exclusively" to tournament players. How would it? Please explain.
This is the heart of what I'm saying here if you don't get anything else get this.

The idea of unbalanced being advantageous is silly - it undermines 1) Video-game Design 101 and 2) the ranking system of Smash itself. It would cause more harm than good.

Friend argument is still poor. Obviously, I'm going to play with friends for things like custom moves and probably custom stages. This isn't something so outlandish/ or oddly specific that the play with friends argument seems justified. Playing on a custom stage with 4 Olimars and low gravity, sure - you should make friends - but playing on Battlefield with no items seems too simple to say that.

Never said he should talk about patches - my argument was since he is probably doing/planning for the eventuality of them, bringing up potential problems/complaints now isn't a bad idea.

I'm going to stop number because I feel we overcame out impasse for the most part, well kind of. I'm not overblowing it, I'll play it - I'll enjoy it. I'm just tired of people complaining about people saying we shouldn't have more than just Final Destination and couldn't give legitimate reasons. And the request is really small - I never said he should make a BattleField variant of the stages.

Almost forgot - if that Japanese thing about only Final Destination is true then I have no objections, leave it as it is. I can live with that. The thing is you just now mentioned this - all your other responses I felt weren't very good.

 

[ChikoLad]

You never said outright that For Glory should be used to host tourneys, but you keep saying that it's catered to competitive players (and in your mind, that's tourney players). I'm telling you that this is not the case, at least not for Western players, as Sakurai is likely not even aware of all of the little specifics of how tourney stages selection works in the US.

Yes, I know you mean tourney players when you say "competitive", but that doesn't change what the dictionary definition of competitive is. For Glory and For Fun are designed for ALL competitive players, it's not designed to cater to the tourney crowd. If it was, it would have more stages. A lot of people feel Final Destination is balanced enough. It's not adequate in a tourney situation in the West, as the metagame in the West has evolved in a way that FD is not completely fair. There is a huge distinction between tourney players and competitive players, as tourney players play Smash as a career, and put money on the line. Someone who's competitive simply just likes showing off their skills and honing them, but don't put money on the line. Only the former would care about having extremely balanced stages in Smash, but they likely won't play For Glory very seriously. The latter won't care about stages so long as they feel they are playing well.

I've never once implied that it wouldn't be good to have more stages, what I'm saying is it's not a huge priority right now like you say it is (and don't say you haven't been acting like that, you wouldn't type long posts like that if you didn't feel this was an important issue. Not to mention that it seems to be virtually the only thing you've posted about since joining this forum). We also can't definitively say what stages will be neutral or not right now, especially since we haven't touched the newcomers yet, so having only variations of Final Destination in For Glory is just fine for now. Wait and see how the metagame develops, and if it still bothers you that only FD variations are available in For Glory, then start a petition or something, or post about it on Sakurai's twitter. And before you start again harping on about FD being super unbalanced, again, we need to wait for the metagame to develop, and not only that, but For Glory wouldn't be perfectly balanced even with more stages, so let's just focus on how FD (and it's variations, which DO have differences beyond aesthetics and music) fairs in Smash for now. This is what I've been saying this whole time. It's not an issue that needs patching now. I'm sure it's an easy feature for them to add in terms of the patching process, but we need to see the metagame first. FD and it's variations are balanced enough for now.

And playing unbalanced games on occasion is advantageous, because like it or not, you will rarely end up with a 50/50 match up even in a tournament, and you should be prepared to deal with that. At least having FD only in For Glory narrows those match ups down more than having more stages would.

You're not asking for just Battlefield though, you're asking for a few stages. And I say make some friends if you want that, that's what most tourney players are doing. How do you expect to have completely customisable training 50/50 match ups in For Glory, where you play against randoms? Even if you had your extra stages, you wouldn't know what character you're fighting each match. In tourneys (your definition of competitive players compete in these, the guys you claim to be arguing for the benefit for), stages are picked based on what characters are chosen. This completely goes out the window in For Glory, and because of that, tourney players won't care, since For Glory has no stakes like a real tournament. Heck, a very recent news article on this site even tells you that a tourney atmosphere is it's own thing. Why should we go out of our way to make a flawed imitation in For Glory? Let it be it's own thing. Let it develop by it's own terms, there is no point in asking for change now.

And yes, the thing about Japanese tourneys generally being FD only is true of Melee and Brawl. In Smash 64, only Dreamland is tourney legal, but Smash 4 is looking to have a meta game more like an amalgamation of Melee and Brawl (as said by Sakurai himself).

I'd also like to note that I only disagree with you in context. If you were asking for a few extra stages to spice things up later on down the line to give For Glory a bit of extra variety, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But you are asking for this on behalf of tourney players and to make things more balanced, when tourney players don't care, and no meta game has been established, making the balance argument invalid.

And it's fully possible some FD variants will have platforms anyway. I know it was suggested otherwise, but Sakurai is the same guy that told us ZSS wouldn't be playable, only to say "nah, just kidding" five seconds later. Plus, it was noted that all content shown in the Direct wasn't final, and is subject to change.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

You never said outright that For Glory should be used to host tourneys, but you keep saying that it's catered to competitive players (and in your mind, that's tourney players). I'm telling you that this is not the case, at least not for Western players, as Sakurai is likely not even aware of all of the little specifics of how tourney stages selection works in the US.

Yes, I know you mean tourney players when you say "competitive", but that doesn't change what the dictionary definition of competitive is. For Glory and For Fun are designed for ALL competitive players, it's not designed to cater to the tourney crowd. If it was, it would have more stages. A lot of people feel Final Destination is balanced enough. It's not adequate in a tourney situation in the West, as the metagame in the West has evolved in a way that FD is not completely fair. There is a huge distinction between tourney players and competitive players, as tourney players play Smash as a career, and put money on the line. Someone who's competitive simply just likes showing off their skills and honing them, but don't put money on the line. Only the former would care about having extremely balanced stages in Smash, but they likely won't play For Glory very seriously. The latter won't care about stages so long as they feel they are playing well.

I've never once implied that it wouldn't be good to have more stages, what I'm saying is it's not a huge priority right now like you say it is (and don't say you haven't been acting like that, you wouldn't type long posts like that if you didn't feel this was an important issue. Not to mention that it seems to be virtually the only thing you've posted about since joining this forum). We also can't definitively say what stages will be neutral or not right now, especially since we haven't touched the newcomers yet, so having only variations of Final Destination in For Glory is just fine for now. Wait and see how the metagame develops, and if it still bothers you that only FD variations are available in For Glory, then start a petition or something, or post about it on Sakurai's twitter. And before you start again harping on about FD being super unbalanced, again, we need to wait for the metagame to develop, and not only that, but For Glory wouldn't be perfectly balanced even with more stages, so let's just focus on how FD (and it's variations, which DO have differences beyond aesthetics and music) fairs in Smash for now. This is what I've been saying this whole time. It's not an issue that needs patching now. I'm sure it's an easy feature for them to add in terms of the patching process, but we need to see the metagame first. FD and it's variations are balanced enough for now.

And playing unbalanced games on occasion is advantageous, because like it or not, you will rarely end up with a 50/50 match up even in a tournament, and you should be prepared to deal with that. At least having FD only in For Glory narrows those match ups down more than having more stages would.

You're not asking for just Battlefield though, you're asking for a few stages. And I say make some friends if you want that, that's what most tourney players are doing. How do you expect to have completely customisable training 50/50 match ups in For Glory, where you play against randoms? Even if you had your extra stages, you wouldn't know what character you're fighting each match. In tourneys (your definition of competitive players compete in these, the guys you claim to be arguing for the benefit for), stages are picked based on what characters are chosen. This completely goes out the window in For Glory, and because of that, tourney players won't care, since For Glory has no stakes like a real tournament. Heck, a very recent news article on this site even tells you that a tourney atmosphere is it's own thing. Why should we go out of our way to make a flawed imitation in For Glory? Let it be it's own thing. Let it develop by it's own terms, there is no point in asking for change now.

And yes, the thing about Japanese tourneys generally being FD only is true of Melee and Brawl. In Smash 64, only Dreamland is tourney legal, but Smash 4 is looking to have a meta game more like an amalgamation of Melee and Brawl (as said by Sakurai himself).

I'd also like to note that I only disagree with you in context. If you were asking for a few extra stages to spice things up later on down the line to give For Glory a bit of extra variety, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But you are asking for this on behalf of tourney players and to make things more balanced, when tourney players don't care, and no meta game has been established, making the balance argument invalid.

And it's fully possible some FD variants will have platforms anyway. I know it was suggested otherwise, but Sakurai is the same guy that told us ZSS wouldn't be playable, only to say "nah, just kidding" five seconds later. Plus, it was noted that all content shown in the Direct wasn't final, and is subject to change.

Why do I have to quote myself so hard on a forum?
You're putting words into my mouth. Like two post ago I made a distinction between competitive-tourney and competitive non-tourney players. I did say For Glory is for competitive players - I NEVER said all competitves are tourney players.
" 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. "
Earlier, I acknowledge that this should/could happen after the meta-game developed.
" 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).' "

For me, competitive players really just meant people who are more likely to play with no items, and on stages that are relatively balanced ( no instant-kill enemies, no scrolling stages, no random hazards, etc) with minimal "surprises" so that skill, more or less, is the determining factor for victory. I thought that was clear - seeing as that is who For Glory is aimed at.

The non-aesthetic difference of the Final Destination variants isn't platforms though, which is one of the most important differences. And I realize more stages doesn't make it perfectly balanced - but it makes it a lot more balanced. I get it, you won't have perfect match-ups therefore it's a good idea to be experienced in unfair match-ups. Got it the first time. The problem is only Final Destination creates only certain types of unfair matches. So yeah, maybe one guy will get good even when he is at a disadvantage ( good for him ) - but another won't get as good as he should because the mode favors his character. My point is with more stages all people will have more experience at matches that both favor and don't favor them. And it's better that way.


And I question your statement that tourney players don't care at all - so if I went somewhere and asked them "Would you like more stages in For Glory mode?" they would be like "Nah." Seems silly.
Just because For Glory won't be just like a tournament (and shouldn't ) doesn't mean tourney players won't care - like you said earlier, the mode is to hone skills. If you have more experience on more stages your overall skill should be better - that is my point. I argue to balance the individual. When you say catering to tourney players that sounds as if you imply by catering to tourney players you aren't catering to the other competitives. But the fact is, catering to tourneys ( in this case ) doesn't mean doing a disservice to the other competitives. In fact it helps all competitives.

It's the principle. I'm more annoyed at the responses I hear from people who think those asking for more than just Final Destination are whinny brats. That's what pissed me off. If they had good reasons ( like the Japanese one ) then that's fine - but it was the fact that they were so stupid to not even acknowledge that there could be a legitimate point being made.

I feel like at this point I'm just repeating myself, but maybe that's fine 'cause it seems as if we've reached an understanding, kind of.

 

[ChikoLad]

To me, it sounds like you don't understand how game development fundamentally works, especially with Nintendo. You say "how hard is it to say they plan to update it?", I say "how hard is it for you to just wait and see?". This is something Sakurai has no obligation to address before the game comes out. As I kept saying, wait until the meta game is established. Sakurai can't plan patches when he hasn't got our hands on feedback. Most patches happen sometime after release.

As I already mentioned, we can't say for sure that none of the Final Destination variants won't have platforms. Granted, it seems contradictory to the name of the stage if there were some, but THE GAME SIMPLY ISN'T OUT YET AND IT WAS BLATANTLY SAID THAT EVERYTHING IN THE DIRECT WAS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. That, and Sakurai likes surprising us. This what I keep telling you. People complaining about For Glory (like yourself) are doing it pre-maturely. Wait until your fears are definite before you start rallying for change.

And I question your statement that tourney players don't care at all - so if I went somewhere and asked them "Would you like more stages in For Glory mode?" they would be like "Nah." Seems silly.

"Tourney players don't care" =/= "Tourney players would refuse", so this hypothetical scenario has no relevance to my point. I'm sure anyone will accept the prospect of a few more tame stages being added to For Glory, myself included, but I know tourney players aren't going to get the pitchforks out over changing it, because they like to have completely customisable training tools, and they already have that in Training Mode, Local VS, and Online with Friends. For Glory is not that, but they already have 3 modes that caters to them. This is what I mean by "Tourney players don't care". For Glory is just for anyone who wants a quick, grounded match and to know exactly what they are getting into each time (sans opponent selection). It's like "Quick Match" in Tekken online play. The only selection you have to worry about is your character, the rules, opponents and stages are done for you.

I don't think asking for more than Final Destination is whiny, but I think joining a forum to make six or so long winded posts about why we should be rallying for more than Final Destination months before the game is even out and a meta game established, is naive and nonsensical, and even if it doesn't change, most Smash players will be too busy enjoying an official online Smash mode that works well.

If we're gonna talk REALLY catering to the competitive crowd, I'd ask for an online version of the Tourney mode from past games that is improved and adapted to online, but For Glory is fine for now. As I said before, the Western tourney players are a miniscule fraction of Smash buyers, and while I COMPLETELY respect the scene and would love to join it myself, they simply have little influence on the overall development of Smash. Which is why they should leave For Glory how it is, allow it to cause growth in the tourney scene (because it will), and then start asking for changes. Rallying for changes willy-nilly gets nothing done.

 

[OptimistNic]

Some people want to have a good competitive battle.

Then they can stay far the hell away from online play, then!

 

[Goten21]

I don't remember Sakurai saying the customization is Wii U only...

 

[Miles Pierre]

To me, it sounds like you don't understand how game development fundamentally works, especially with Nintendo. You say "how hard is it to say they plan to update it?", I say "how hard is it for you to just wait and see?". This is something Sakurai has no obligation to address before the game comes out. As I kept saying, wait until the meta game is established. Sakurai can't plan patches when he hasn't got our hands on feedback. Most patches happen sometime after release.

As I already mentioned, we can't say for sure that none of the Final Destination variants won't have platforms. Granted, it seems contradictory to the name of the stage if there were some, but THE GAME SIMPLY ISN'T OUT YET AND IT WAS BLATANTLY SAID THAT EVERYTHING IN THE DIRECT WAS SUBJECT TO CHANGE. That, and Sakurai likes surprising us. This what I keep telling you. People complaining about For Glory (like yourself) are doing it pre-maturely. Wait until your fears are definite before you start rallying for change.



"Tourney players don't care" =/= "Tourney players would refuse", so this hypothetical scenario has no relevance to my point. I'm sure anyone will accept the prospect of a few more tame stages being added to For Glory, myself included, but I know tourney players aren't going to get the pitchforks out over changing it, because they like to have completely customisable training tools, and they already have that in Training Mode, Local VS, and Online with Friends. For Glory is not that, but they already have 3 modes that caters to them. This is what I mean by "Tourney players don't care". For Glory is just for anyone who wants a quick, grounded match and to know exactly what they are getting into each time (sans opponent selection). It's like "Quick Match" in Tekken online play. The only selection you have to worry about is your character, the rules, opponents and stages are done for you.

I don't think asking for more than Final Destination is whiny, but I think joining a forum to make six or so long winded posts about why we should be rallying for more than Final Destination months before the game is even out and a meta game established, is naive and nonsensical, and even if it doesn't change, most Smash players will be too busy enjoying an official online Smash mode that works well.

If we're gonna talk REALLY catering to the competitive crowd, I'd ask for an online version of the Tourney mode from past games that is improved and adapted to online, but For Glory is fine for now. As I said before, the Western tourney players are a miniscule fraction of Smash buyers, and while I COMPLETELY respect the scene and would love to join it myself, they simply have little influence on the overall development of Smash. Which is why they should leave For Glory how it is, allow it to cause growth in the tourney scene (because it will), and then start asking for changes. Rallying for changes willy-nilly gets nothing done.

Yikes!

We can assume that Final Destination variants won't have platforms, otherwise they wouldn't really be Final Destination. That stage is defined by being completely flat with no platforms. That's the whole point. The Final Destination variant of Battlefield perfectly illustrates this. You're right though, things could change - it's unfinished right now. But saying things can change is not a proper argument against people voicing their opinion on why the mode, as it is now, is not a proper competitive environment.

You're on the wrong side of the argument. That's usually what happens when you have a "Let's just wait and see" approach to complaints. That's what people said when faced with the Xbox's draconian DRM policies. No. Don't wait. You wait and it may be too late. Letting them know earlier is better than letting them know later.

If we confront this issue now it may be resolved by the time the WII U version releases. Why the hell would we wait until the game's release to address a clearly flawed issue? If your argument is that For Glory mode may not be flawed, you'd still be wrong with the "wait and see" approach. They might be planning more variety but voicing our concerns would only let them know they're on the right track; that we do want more variety. If they aren't planning on adding more stages and the competitive environment in For Glory mode won't be hampered by flat stages then is there really anything wrong with adding stages with platforms? It certainly can't hurt.

There is more to lose if we wait than there is if we voice our concerns right now. Really, the only thing that's happening is a few posters here and there who really don't understand the competitive scene complaining about our complaints -- which is always silly. Our points, our complaints are valid. And now is the time to voice them. Not later when everything is set in stone. Not later when everything is settled. Not later when we have the game in our Wii U. Now. Not later. We don't need to wait for a meta game to emerge. This isn't a completely different game, it's a game in an established series. We know how it plays. We've seen how it plays. We can use common sense to deduce how For Glory mode will play based on the information already given and past Smash games. It's quite clear what will happen if it's not addressed. And if it turns out to be completely fine (which I highly doubt) there is absolutely no harm (as I said before) in adding stages with platforms for variety.

Adding more stages at this point can only help. Pascal's Wager can be adapted to fit this scenario. Not saying anything could lead to the worst possible outcome: For Glory being near useless as a viable competitive platform because it caters to specific character types. (No items, Final Destination, Fox only)

You are only arguing against this because you don't really care what happens. You have no bone in this fight. That much is clear when you try to demean anyone who would make a long well thought-out post about this subject. It's hard to really take what you have to say seriously when you're not seriously considering the topic:

I don't think asking for more than Final Destination is whiny, but I think joining a forum to make six or so long winded posts about why we should be rallying for more than Final Destination months before the game is even out and a meta game established, is naive and nonsensical,

The only one being naive and nonsensical is you buddy.

 

[LancerStaff]

I don't remember Sakurai saying the customization is Wii U only...

It's actually the opposite in a sense.

 

[ChikoLad]

The only one being naive and nonsensical is you buddy.

Literally the only thing I need to say in response to the entirety of the post is that you seriously tried to compare this to Microsoft's DRM thing. Yet I'm being nonsensical?

The DRM thing was nothing short of corporate scamming.
For Glory mode is a mode with a given set of harmless rules, that IS NOT FINALISED (unlike the DRM thing before people went up in arms about it), and is likely going to be subject to change, and is likely going to have constant monitoring when it comes out, as the online services of fighting games tend to.

Not to mention that NOBODY liked the DRM thing. We had power to make a quick change there, because Microsoft would have lost out on millions of sales (even now, the Xbox One has only sold about 4 million units). And sure enough, they noticed the impact.
If the entire tourney scene hypothetically would not buy Smash over this mode (hypothetically, because most of them are fine with it), that'd be a loss of about 100,000 sales, going by this websites numbers. That's not even a dent. Nintendo would not notice this, as it's not worth it.

And I like how you go on and on, on this big tangent about how the competitive scene are upset about this when that's CLEARLY not the case. You are part of a very small minority that isn't even the majority of the tourney players (forgetting that the tourney players are a tiny minority as is). As I have said, most tourney players are seeing this mode for what it is, and acknowledging that playing With Friends mode gives them the potential for a more tourney like set up anyway. Most of them also realise that For Glory is not for them, anyone who thinks For Glory mode was made specially for the tourney scene is literally deluding themselves. And to be honest, if someone is so bothered by a bit of a balance discrepancy in a mode AGAINST RANDOMS, they probably aren't very good at the game in the first place. As I've said, in an actual tourney scene, I get the pickiness over stages, because of the stakes involved. But those stakes do not exist in For Glory mode.

And quit the drama, this isn't a "fight", and I don't need a "bone" for this "fight". JFC.

 

[Chiroz]

In case you guys missed it, no one is anonymous anymore; you get to see the other random player's Mii Account when playing against him. Also the Wii U has both voice chat and private messaging capabilities. (And Miiverse already does both).

You can just as easily play a few matches of "For Glory" mode and add to your friend list anyone and everyone you feel like it and then chat with them and invite them to play on any stage you want.

I mean, I am not against introducing more stages in For Glory mode, I'd be all for it. But truthfully it isn't a big deal. You don't even need to go out of your way to get "friends" to play with you. If its anything like any other online game, you will be adding people to your friend list left and right and inviting them to play games with you.

Remember this isn't Brawl online with everyone being anonymous and the necessity for "Wii Codes" to add to friends. Also Wii had no chat or voice chat feature making it incredibly hard to actually get people to play with you and make the rules.

Now its just add them after you play them on For Glory and then message them with: Wanna play on Battlefield/Random legal stages?

 

[ChikoLad]

It should also be noted that voice chat will be available to everyone (unless Nintendo specifically endeavours to omit it, PRAY that they don't do that), because the 3DS and Wii U GamePad have microphones. Even if you use a different controller than the GamePad, you could just sit it nearby and it would pick up your voice.

 

[LancerStaff]

There's no voice chat in MK7, KIU, or LMDM, nor has it been mentioned in context of SSBU or MK8. Doubtful it'll happen.

 

[Chiroz]

It should also be noted that voice chat will be available to everyone (unless Nintendo specifically endeavours to omit it, PRAY that they don't do that), because the 3DS and Wii U GamePad have microphones. Even if you use a different controller than the GamePad, you could just sit it nearby and it would pick up your voice.

I can probably see them opting out of voice chat inside the game, at least with random people. I imagine for friends there would probably be voice chat capabilities. And if there aren't there's always that app that allows you to chat while playing, Wii U Chat or something, it comes with the console.

 

[Chiroz]

There's no voice chat in MK7, KIU, or LMDM, nor has it been mentioned in context of SSBU or MK8. Doubtful it'll happen.

There is a Wii U app that comes installed in the console that allows you to call friends in a skype-like manner (even allows video chat). And you can talk while playing. The only problem I foresee is that maybe you will have to close the game in order to call a new person/end the call.

 

[LancerStaff]

There is a Wii U app that comes installed in the console that allows you to call friends in a skype-like manner. And you can talk while playing. The only problem I foresee is that maybe you will have to close the game in order to call a new person/end the call.

You can't talk and play while using the app, last I checked.

 

[Chiroz]

You can't talk and play while using the app, last I checked.

Personally I've never used it because I have no friends who own a Wii U and play games that I like but when they advertised it back when the Wii U wasn't even released thats the main feature they advertised. It was 2 guys talking while one of them played Zombi U. I would expect the very main feature to have been implemented, but I cannot assure it 100%. I'll try and test it today and come back to the thread.

 

[LancerStaff]

Personally I've never used it because I have no friends who own a Wii U and play games that I like but when they advertised it back when the Wii U wasn't even released thats the main feature they advertised. It was 2 guys talking while one of them played Zombi U. I would expect the very main feature to have been implemented, but I cannot assure it 100%. I'll try and test it today and come back to the thread.

Unless they updated the app, it's impossible. I've tried everything.

 

[Pazzo.]

You can't talk and play while using the app, last I checked.

Really? I thought you could.... but I haven't used it yet.

 

[ChikoLad]

I do hope they allow voice chat at least amongst friends. It's not a huge issue for me personally, as I'll just take to Skype if that's the case, but I should be able to do it from within the game.

 

[Chiroz]

Really? I thought you could.... but I haven't used it yet.

Yeah, I mean that's the thing I got most excited about when I saw it on E3.

If I can't use it while playing then there's really no point, I could just use my computer and skype -_-.


Hopefully SSB4 has voice chat with friends, that's something logical to implement.

 

[Pazzo.]

Yeah, I mean that's the thing I got most excited about when I saw it on E3.

If I can't use it while playing then there's really no point, I could just use my computer and skype -_-.


Hopefully SSB4 has voice chat with friends, that's something logical to implement.

Not to mention the action-figure-reader-thingy that has a use in 5 games, and 4 of them are Skylanders.

Though it's a long-shot, I'd love it if DLC could be optionally bought in a store via Skylanders-like figures. Maybe Sakurai will even include extra-moves for the rest of the cast! But like I said, It's a long-shot.

In any case, I'd like Smash 4 to implement all of the Wii U features, especially Chat Online.

 

[ChikoLad]

Not to mention the action-figure-reader-thingy that has a use in 5 games, and 4 of them are Skylanders.

Though it's a long-shot, I'd love it if DLC could be optionally bought in a store via Skylanders-like figures. Maybe Sakurai will even include extra-moves for the rest of the cast! But like I said, It's a long-shot.

In any case, I'd like Smash 4 to implement all of the Wii U features, especially Chat Online.

Eh...I wouldn't want the Skylanders formula for DLC fighters.

However, that concept would be cool for trophies. Buy a real life figurine on a trophy stand, scan it, and get an in-game trophy.

 

[Miles Pierre]

Literally the only thing I need to say in response to the entirety of the post is that you seriously tried to compare this to Microsoft's DRM thing. Yet I'm being nonsensical?

The DRM thing was nothing short of corporate scamming.
For Glory mode is a mode with a given set of harmless rules, that IS NOT FINALISED (speculation. You don't know what is and isn't finished. All you know is that the entire game isn't complete. You do not know what modes are done and what modes aren't) (unlike the DRM thing before people went up in arms about it), and is likely going to be subject to change, and is likely going to have constant monitoring when it comes out, as the online services of fighting games tend to.

Not to mention that NOBODY liked the DRM thing. (wrong but lets not get OT) We had power to make a quick change there, because Microsoft would have lost out on millions of sales (even now, the Xbox One has only sold about 4 million units). And sure enough, they noticed the impact.
If the entire tourney scene hypothetically would not buy Smash over this mode (hypothetically, because most of them are fine with it), that'd be a loss of about 100,000 sales, going by this websites numbers. That's not even a dent. Nintendo would not notice this, as it's not worth it. (pointless drivel -- way OT here)

And I like how you go on and on, on this big tangent about how the competitive scene are upset about this (Never said the competitive scene was upset by this. Im simply speaking for myself and others who voice my same opinion) when that's CLEARLY not the case. (and you have the numbers right?) You are part of a very small minority that isn't even the majority of the tourney players (forgetting that the tourney players are a tiny minority as is). As I have said, most tourney players are seeing this mode for what it is, and acknowledging that playing With Friends mode gives them the potential for a more tourney like set up anyway. Most of them also realise that For Glory is not for them, anyone who thinks For Glory mode was made specially for the tourney scene is literally deluding themselves. And to be honest, if someone is so bothered by a bit of a balance discrepancy in a mode AGAINST RANDOMS, they probably aren't very good at the game in the first place. (lol. You cannot be serious. I guess you havent played any sort of competitive game online. Your argument is basically "if you complain you suck". Nice) As I've said, in an actual tourney scene, I get the pickiness over stages, because of the stakes involved. But those stakes do not exist in For Glory mode.

And quit the drama, this isn't a "fight", and I don't need a "bone" for this "fight". JFC.

I never said this situation was exactly analogous to MS and DRM. That would be absurd. I brought it up as an example to demonstrate how silly the "wait and see" argument tends to be. (See PS4 No DRM campaign for a successful outreach when voicing concerns)

Let's not get off track though, I don't want to argue about MS and DRM and Smash sales. That's all irrelevant. The point I was making is us voicing concern about a possibly broken mode of gameplay is legitimate. You haven't really addressed my arguments at all. Again, there is nothing to lose by us voicing our concerns. Adding more platforms to the stages or stages with platforms will only help add more variety. Something that Sakurai clearly likes to do.

And like @ PizzaWenisaur mentioned before you seem to be confusing competitive players and tourney players. Worse, (worse only because you clearly aren't paying attention to the posts youre responding to) you're assuming I'm a tourney player. A tourney player is a subset of the entire competitive scene. I play competitively but I've never been to one tournament. I'm not a tourney player and its clear by your mode of argument you think tourney players are the only one's annoyed by this mode. Stop arguing against strawmen. Tourney does not equal competitive. Further, you haven't really responded to anything I said. Why is it so bad for us to voice our concern? How does it harm you or the game? Read what I said about Pascal's Wager. Honestly, I would like you to read my entire post again and form a proper rebuttal. You didn't address anything I said. You just attacked a myriad of strawmen and called it a day.

Lastly "You have no bone in this fight" is an idom. A figure of speech. There is no drama. It's an accurate depiction of your stance though. You're only posting to complain about complaints/concerns. You're being irrational and it shows. Sit down and think about why people are saying the things they are about For Glory mode. Do you really believe they're being crazy? Maybe just maybe they have a point. Smash Bros and Sakurai aren't a sacred cow, nor should they be. This game is not above reproach. Stop being a fanboy and think rationally about people's complaints.

Oh and I highlighted all of your arguments that make no sense and are based purely on conjecture/baseless assumptions.

 

[.toasty]

[sarcasm]Solid Opinions ALL AROUND[/sarcasm]

 

[DraginHikari]

[sarcasm]Solid Opinions ALL AROUND[/sarcasm]

I don't know, I find the ironic comments kind of amusing.

 

[ChikoLad]

I never said this situation was exactly analogous to MS and DRM. That would be absurd. I brought it up as an example to demonstrate how silly the "wait and see" argument tends to be. Let's not get off track though, I don't want to argue about MS and DRM and Smash sales. That's all irrelevant. The point I was making is us voicing concern about a possibly broken mode of gameplay is legitimate. You haven't really addressed my arguments at all. Again, there is nothing to lose by us voicing our concerns. Adding more platforms to the stages or stages with platforms will only help add more variety. Something that Sakurai clearly likes to do.

And like @ PizzaWenisaur mentioned before you seem to be confusing competitive players and tourney players. Worse, you're assuming I'm a tourney player. A tourney player is a subset of the entire competitive scene. I play competitively but I've never been to one tournament. I'm not a tourney player and its clear by your mode of argument you think tourney players are the only one's annoyed by this mode. Stop arguing against strawmen. Tourney does not equal competitive. Further, you haven't really responded to anything I said. Why is it so bad for us to voice our concern? How does it harm you or the game? Read what I said about Pascal's Wager. Honestly, I would like you to read my entire post again and form a proper rebuttal. You didn't address anything I said. You just attacked a myriad of strawmen and called it a day.

Lastly "You have no bone in this fight" is an idom. A figure of speech. There is no drama. It's an accurate depiction of your stance though. You're only posting to complain about complaints/concerns. You're being irrational and it shows. Sit down and think about why people are saying the things they are about For Glory mode. Do you really believe they're being crazy? Maybe just maybe they have a point. Smash Bros and Sakurai aren't a sacred cow, nor should they be. This game is not above reproach. Stop being a fanboy and think rationally about people's complaints.

Oh and I highlighted all of your arguments that make no sense and are based purely on conjecture/baseless assumptions.

You are literally the epitome of unjustified arrogance right now.

(speculation. You don't know what is and isn't finished. All you know is that the entire game isn't complete. You do not know what modes are done and what modes aren't)

Actually, it was explicitly stated that EVERYTHING in the Direct is subject to change, so nothing is considered finished right now.

(wrong but lets not get OT)

Absolutely no consumers liked the DRM thing Microsoft were going to implement. Sure, the shareholders would have loved it, but consumers? You'd be very hard pressed to find anyone who actually felt they benefited. And you brought this comparison up, don't go weaseling out by saying my points are off-topic, you started this line of discussion by making the comparison you did, and I am showing you how it's invalid as a comparison.

(pointless drivel -- way OT here)

No, it's not pointless or off topic. It shows how poor your comparison was - the outrage against Microsoft's DRM policies only worked because so many people were against it, and it would have been a visible blow to Microsoft if they didn't listen. You say we should push against the current plans of For Glory mode like people pushed against Microsoft's DRM policies (and to quote your comparison before you say you didn't make one: "You're on the wrong side of the argument. That's usually what happens when you have a "Let's just wait and see" approach to complaints. That's what people said when faced with the Xbox's draconian DRM policies. No. Don't wait. You wait and it may be too late. Letting them know earlier is better than letting them know later.").

But the fact is, the push against DRM only worked because of the numbers and stakes involved for Microsoft. Pushing against the state of a harmless mode in a game is not going to have near the amount of supporters, and certainly won't have a noticeable amount of supporters before release, and even if Nintendo were to ignore you after directly reading your comments, they wouldn't be hurt at all, because all of the people complaining will buy the game anyway. If you really want to make a statement, put your money where your mouth is, and boycott the game until you see a change, because THAT'S what people against Microsoft's DRM policies did (and again, YOU made this comparison. Not me. You said we should do what people did against the DRM policies, not me). But you're likely not gonna do that, which proves how little an "issue" this is and how misguided and misplaced your complaints are, especially since the mode is SUBJECT TO CHANGE and the game NOT OUT YET and the game being PATCHABLE.

(Never said the competitive scene was upset by this. Im simply speaking for myself and others who voice my same opinion)

And you made no effort to clarify this. Even so, this only backs up my point that your little group is tiny and insignificant. The issue is also miniscule. It's nitpicky at best.

(and you have the numbers right?)

As I stated when speaking with PizzaWenisaur, yes. See the member count of this very website? There's your number. The majority of players contained within the tourney scene would be WITHIN that number. Not even taking up the majority, just within it.

(lol. You cannot be serious. I guess you havent played any sort of competitive game online. Your argument is basically "if you complain you suck". Nice)

I have played plenty of competitive games online, but unlike you, I know how to put my matches into context. Playing against randoms in Tekken with random stages being selected, and random characters? Eh, if I win I win, if I lose I lose. No point stressing over it. Playing in a lobby where there are clear abuses of certain moves on certain stages, and constantly being put on those stages? OK, NOW some of the losses may be due to balance issues.

My point is not "if you complain you suck" (stop twisting my words to sound malicious), my point is "if you cannot just play random matches for what they are and attribute any or all possible losses to unbalanced gameplay when the balance discrepancy is not huge, then you aren't good at the game to begin with". I use the same argument when people complain about move spam when playing online against randoms. If you cannot overcome the EXACT same move being used against you over and over, then you need to get better at the game, especially since move spam can be completely justified in some cases (if it's the most practical course of action in a given situation, why wouldn't you use it?). Don't complain about a slight disadvantage, beat the disadvantage. It makes you a much better player, and to be quite frank, having some balance discrepancy makes things interesting, and is suited for random matches. Sure, there should be no huge balance issues, but slight handicaps are a good training tool, and pretty much every "VS Randoms" mode in a fighting game has this.

I never said this situation was exactly analogous to MS and DRM. That would be absurd. I brought it up as an example to demonstrate how silly the "wait and see" argument tends to be. Let's not get off track though, I don't want to argue about MS and DRM and Smash sales. That's all irrelevant. The point I was making is us voicing concern about a possibly broken mode of gameplay is legitimate. You haven't really addressed my arguments at all. Again, there is nothing to lose by us voicing our concerns. Adding more platforms to the stages or stages with platforms will only help add more variety. Something that Sakurai clearly likes to do.

Again, bringing that up was flawed in this instance, as "wait and see" is perfectly justified here. The game is subject to change. Sakurai has expressed willingness to patch the game, including character balancing patches. It's a completely justified train of thought. This didn't apply to Microsoft's DRM policies. I know exactly what you were pulling, you were trying to use an exaggerated comparison to shock people, but I'm sorry, the comparison is near non-existant. Sakurai is no Don Mattrick, either.

I didn't say wanting platform stages (e.g. Battlefield) was a bad thing at all. My point is that we should just wait. Being forced to use just FD variants helps us to determine just how balanced/unbalanced FD will be in this particular game, and how the variants provided will change things. This will help us make more informed suggestions for what stages SHOULD be added to For Glory. You may say "Final Destination is just as unbalanced in one game as it is in others", but can we say the same for all of the new stages we are getting? No, so it would be unwise to suggest stages right now. Battlefield and Halberd maybe (Jungle Japes is going to be banned again anyway in the eyes of competitive players), but that's not enough. We should wait until we can properly assess more stages, especially for the Wii U version, where the stages seem much less dynamic.

And like PizzaWenisaur mentioned before you seem to be confusing competitive players and tourney players. Worse, you're assuming I'm a tourney player. A tourney player is a subset of the entire competitive scene. I play competitively but I've never been to one tournament. I'm not a tourney player and its clear by your mode of argument you think tourney players are the only one's annoyed by this mode. Stop arguing against strawmen. Tourney does not equal competitive. Further, you haven't really responded to anything I said. Why is it so bad for us to voice our concern? How does it harm you or the game? Read what I said about Pascal's Wager. Honestly, I would like you to read my entire post again and form a proper rebuttal. You didn't address anything I said. You just attacked a myriad of strawmen and called it a day.

I'm not confusing competitive and tourney players, in fact PizzaWenisaur did just that, and so are you right now. I blatanty said tourney players have NOT been bothered by this, and you seem to think I was saying they were, yet I'm the one confusing the two?

I play competitively too, but the thing is, stage banning is only present in tourneys, and only exists because of the money involved. For us competitive non-tourney players, the stages we limit ourselves to are completely different and we do so for our own reasons. For example, when I practice in Melee, I generally jump between Final Destination and Battlefield the majority of the time. I do this because I'm a Falco player, and Final Destination is a stage where I feel I have the upper hand, while Battlefield is the opposite scenario. By jumping between the two, I can compare the effectiveness of various techniques.

However, other competitive, non-tourney players will play on completely different stages to me, for their own reasons. Meaning we cannot possibly form uniform opinions on what stages should be included in a random selection for For Glory mode, especially when we don't know the full stage list or don't fully understand how some stages work. Therefore, it is better to wait until we can assess new stages, the FD variants, and the characters themselves. That's how this kind of thing works, you don't go crying "OUTRAGE" before you can make any logical deductions. That, and we need to keep in mind the context, the context will not be same as how stage selection in tournaments works, because again, no money is on the line.

 

[Miles Pierre]

I don't have the time right now. Maybe Pizza will tag team with me... but for now, you do realize that "subject to change" does not mean "unfinished" ... I'll edit this post later when I feel like addressing all your other points. Already though you're off to a bad start.

I'll also ask you to answer this two questions:

1. What would your response be if Sakurai added more simple stages with platforms to For Glory?

2. What or who does it hurt for people to voice their concerns over the apparent lack of platformed stages in For Glory?

 

[ChikoLad]

I don't have the time right now. Maybe Pizza will tag team with me... but for now, you do realize that "subject to change" does not mean "unfinished" ... I'll edit this post later when I feel like addressing all your other points. Already though you're off to a bad start.

How foreboding....

Considering your unjustified arrogance and lack of actual facts so far, I'm not worried.

 

[Pazzo.]

[sarcasm]Solid Opinions ALL AROUND[/sarcasm]

These guys are too funny... XD

Not for being funny, but for being incredibly oblivious.

 

[ChikoLad]

[sarcasm]Solid Opinions ALL AROUND[/sarcasm]

Going to be the devil's advocate and say that there are some good points here, specifically from the guy on the left.

-It is true that competitive players can be very obnoxious, none of us can deny that, and that they do like to antagonise. It's not the majority, but the ones who do it are incredibly obnoxious. They have created a bad name for the competitive community at large.

-It is true that some of the recreational players have become just as bad.

-It is true that "For Fun" and "For Glory" is a bit tongue in cheek. I'm fine with both modes the way they are, I guess just the imagery for the mode buttons kinda creates some sort of expectation, like "For Fun" is a good time, and "For Glory" is meant for being deadpan serious. The latter really isn't the case, For Glory's settings are fun, but the imagery they use for the mode will make it look off-putting for some.

There was more but it has escaped me.

I don't have the time right now. Maybe Pizza will tag team with me... but for now, you do realize that "subject to change" does not mean "unfinished" ... I'll edit this post later when I feel like addressing all your other points. Already though you're off to a bad start.

I'll also ask you to answer this two questions:

1. What would your response be if Sakurai added more simple stages with platforms to For Glory?

2. What or who does it hurt for people to voice their concerns over the apparent lack of platformed stages in For Glory?

1) I'd welcome it, and I encourage the idea itself. As I have said countless times, I am in no way against that prospect, I just feel like now is not the time to rally for it. If Sakurai did add them before release, then awesome, but as I have said, we don't know the full stage list or even the complete workings of the ones we do know exist, so we can't make informed decisions. And while I forgot to mention this (many people already have mentioned it, though), Sakurai cannot be expected to make a perfectly balanced stage list for this, especially since we can hardly agree in this community when it comes to what stages should be at tourneys (while there are official rules, not everyone agrees with them). For now, the best he can do is include FD, but he went above and beyond, and is giving us variations of it. Battlefield would be nice, but let's take the growth of the competitive community one step at a time.

2) It would actually hurt the very people asking for the platformed stages so soon. If we hypothetically had the power to influence Sakurai on this matter (which we don't in reality), then he would end up choosing stages will end up disagreeing upon. Which is why FD only is fine FOR NOW. Again, new stages can be added post release, and Sakurai will listen to it, as he has stated being open to patches.

 

[Fuqua]

[sarcasm]Solid Opinions ALL AROUND[/sarcasm]

Omg that opening statement of the right guy.... i just wanted to punch him! How can you be so ignorant?

 

[DraginHikari]

It's the complication involved with the behavior between the casual and competitive community in a number of ways really. He has a particularly view on what Smash is and what he wants it to be and is using weird comparisons to make his point.

Though I do heavily disagree with him, even though I'm not very competitive I have been around long enough to understand what the competitive scene is about in that regards. I think it's best if we don't encourage the angry competitive player stereotype he mentions there.

 

[CosmicKirby]

[sarcasm]Solid Opinions ALL AROUND[/sarcasm]

Well, considering their subjective opinion can't be wrong, then yes, solid opinion. At least they can describe why they prefer and why they don't find one mode or the other fun. I don't see it the way they do, I like competitive play, but if they just don't see it the way I do then so be it.

They do bring up an interesting point that the debate over what is or isn't competitive or fun is pointless.

I disagree heavily with Pat the NES Punk here, even though I love his videos for the most part. I don't see any problem with two separate matchmakers, and I could just as easily flip the tables and say that For Glory is insulting to competitive players because there's no "fun" involved. At least he's aware of why he doesn't like the idea of competitive play.

 

[smashbrolink]

No Im being extremely warm and fuzzy.

What anime is playing in your sig?
It's so familiar-looking...

 

[PLATINUM7]

What anime is playing in your sig?
It's so familiar-looking...

It's High School DxD

Back on topic, I wonder how setting up a match with friends will work. Will it be like local multiplayer where everyone can change the set up, or will there be a party leader who is the only one who can change the set up?

 

[Wanderer from Roseyard]

It's High School DxD

Back on topic, I wonder how setting up a match with friends will work. Will it be like local multiplayer where everyone can change the set up, or will there be a party leader who is the only one who can change the set up?

I think a lobby leader is the most sound option. Since the lobbies will be small and only contain four players or fewer, I'm imagining it working like Left 4 Dead's online lobbies. In that game, there was a leader who changed the campaign, and if the other players didn't like it, they left.

Otherwise, there would be mass chaos with all four players changing settings back and forth, toggling items, toggling random stage select etc, and there would be confusion about what was changed before the match starts.

 

[Goten21]

There's no voice chat in MK7, KIU, or LMDM, nor has it been mentioned in context of SSBU or MK8. Doubtful it'll happen.

Pokemon XY though