Perfect combos are just as bad as Tripping

[TheWishmaster]

Thank you.

 

[Spellman]

Depends, I've gotten COUNTLESS rests off on trips with Jiggs.

Seriously? Well I'm not exactly trying to justify tripping, I don't like it as much as the next guy, but mostly because it ruins my pace. Like moves that induce tripping are fine to me, I don't mind that, but on the fly it's more annoying than anything. I've taken hits from tripping definitely, but it's usually not enough to sway the match for me anyways. If you're scoring things like Rest on people for tripping, then maybe I'm underestimating the mobility of Jigglypuff or how aggressively one can play, but for the most part, tripping has rarely wronged me.

There are less combos, less flashy stuff, and while that isn't very important to make the game good the big issue is that this encourages more sloppy play as punishing mistakes is not nearly as effective as it should be.

I'd say going in for too many hits is the sloppy method of play now when recovery from hits is so easy. I understand that this somewhat limits your chances to attack to failed smashes, and coming out of a roll, which is rare when you are playing a top level player. (and shield grabbing) Among other things...

Well, my point still stands. I think some people just don't like that change period. Understandable. It is a radical change.

 

[TheKneeOfJustice]

I read the OP and Mookie Rah's post (which was the first intelligent one in the thread). Your sentiments really illustrate how poorly you understood melee, or any game on a competitive level.

In melee we had a number of ways to escape combos, and even at that, most combos were not lethal (from very low percents); edge guarding was the leading cause of death towards the end of the metagame. Combos were escapable through DI, SDI, jumping, airdodging, teching, etc. Chain grabbing is another story, but even that was escapable.

There is depth in this. It relies on the person performing the combo being competent enough to execute it with proficiency and being able to account for DI and varying percentages. This also relied on being able to find an opening in your opponents gameplan and capitalizing upon it.

This is depth.

A random factor that can determine a match because your character fell over (this also happens more when you are in the lead (talk about any possible advantage for less capable players)) and dying is not depth.

/thread.

 

[slartibartfast42]

*sigh*

This topic is so depressing, both sides are using so many logical fallacies... I haven't read all the posts, but I want to point out the problems with what I've seen so far:

1. Incomplete Comparison

Perfect combos are just as bad as Tripping

and

So how is this [perfect combos] any different than having a stage with too many random hazards, since in both cases it's just you vs. the game and the other player just so happens to be there?

Actually, not only are these comparisons incomplete (not taking into account skill involved), but they don't relate to the topic. This topic is clearly about Melee hitstun vs Brawl hitstun, not tripping/stage obstacles vs ability to combo. You are just using those as inaccurate, inapplicable examples of how bad high hitstun is.

2. Judgemental Language

I'm just going off on a hunch paingel, but I'm going to assume you aren't really familar with melee competitive/high level play.

I mean your points make sense, but it doesn't seem like you really have the actual game experience to figure out how it actually works. You are not as bad as the people who talk about memorizing button combinations/combos, but you don't seem to understand the cause and effect relationship of these features in high level play.

Sorry, but it's pretty clear that I've thought about this a bit more deeply than you have, and I'm not wrong. You are focusing on tiny details and blowing them out of proportion when they do not, in fact, even matter. Meanwhile, you are ignoring the deeper things that do.

3. Poor Analogy

If you want to use the argument that "Well-trained warriors shouldn't randomly trip and fall over when walking", then couldn't I just simply say "Well-trained warriors shouldn't cringe and freeze up when getting hit"? In my eyes, the two arguements are no different.

I agree with that last sentence, both are terrible analogies that suggest that realism is the most desired aspect of smash which simply is not the case.

4. Not making any sense

The approach is the bottleneck. With hitstun, the first person who lands a hit gets to stop his opponent from attacking. Which is largely why fast/ranged characters ruled Melee. The "strong but slow" characters were owned because their strength was mostly negated by the fact that they could never land a hit first.

wait a second, since 'not hitting first' = 'getting hit', are you saying that you shouldn't place any penalty on getting hit to balance the characters? That makes no sense...

Anyway, there are more, but I just realized that not only do I not care enough to point them out, but doing so wouldn't get anyone anywhere.

The problem with this entire argument is that it's just you guys throwing around opinions. Paingel says that Melee's hitstun system gave too much advantage when you hit someone while the people against him say that brawl's system doesn't give enough. In reality though, either way you look at it, the person getting off a hit is getting an advantage, and you're just arguing over what amount of an advantage is more desirable. To really debate this, you need a standard by which to judge what is most desireable, which would in fact be pure opinion.

Anyway, the general opinion is that the desireable factor is that skill is rewarded proportionately (the more skillfully you act the more you are rewarded). However, there are many different types of skill (technical skill, mindgames, etc.). Here's what I believe hitstun in greater or lesser amounts does to the rewards for skill:

-Mindgames are rewarded more with melee's greater hitstun. If you've watched or played in any high level melee games, you may have noticed that sometimes when somone lands a hit they can combo into many more attacks, while sometimes they only get that one hit off. This is a direct result of the quality of the mindgames; how poor of a position did the attacker lure their opponent into. With less hitstun, no mater how well you mindgame your opponent, you just get that one hit. This changes things from a gradual scale of being rewarded according to quality of the mindgame to a simple on/off reward; did you manage hit first? So it pretty much is a matter of quality and consistency vs consistency by itself.

Continuing on mindgames, the misunderstanding of mindgames seems to be the flaw in TC's arguement. He seems to thing that starting a combo doesn't require mindgames, or any kind of skill at all for that matter, that it's something the game hands to you that you didn't work to achieve.

-Technical skill is rewarded more with greater hitstun, as it would allow you to make the consecutive hits in the combo. However, with little hitstun, no amount of technical skill can continue a combo that 's not possible.

I don't feel like thinking of any more aspects to skill right now, go ahead and mention any that you think debunk me. I maintain that less hitstun = less skill

Looking back on this post, I wonder a) how much of it will make sense to anyone and b) why did I waste my time?

 

[Dark Sonic]

^^That's yet another very insightful post. When I was talking about how it took away from the risk:reward system, that's exactly what I meant. What's even better is that you were able to word it so that it comes off as an objective statement rather than an opinion. Very nice.

Unfortunately I don't think the OP even reads this topic anymore because either

a)He was pursuaded by one of the arguements used against him

or

b)He doesn't believe his arguement will win in this thread so he doesn't post.

Either way it's understandable for him to leave the thread.

 

[Moosecalibur]

exactly...........

 

[slartibartfast42]

lol, sonic wave, I didn't read your post until after I made my post.

 

[LoVer]

excellent post.

 

[Shai Hulud]

lol you f*cking scrubs and your drugs

 

[gods_basement]

the simple fact of the matter is that hitstun is an effect of your hit, meaning it is the expected result of my action. If i hit someone, i expect him to be stunned just like i would expect him to take damage.

its part of the game.

you have a huge logical fallacy equating tripping to any aspect of the game. No, just because i jumped and won, doesnt mean i beat (thegame) instead of (theopponent), even though jumping is implemented by the game. your argument holds no water.

on the other hand, tripping IS being beat by the game; being beat by a faulty RNG algorithm is wholly different than being beaten by a combo that i couldnt knock an opponent out of.

 

[JNS]

i agree completely with sonic wave. Camping due to the new effects is becoming a huge problem. Anyone who plays brawl with any good competition knows this.

when we started playing brawl i liked it because it seemed balanced. That was until one of my friends discovered pit. You know what happenen next.

He went from being 2 stocked while using sonic to DOMINATING with pit. The only way wecan have an advantage is with cahrs that have good projectiles and reflectors so i can make a decent offensive aproach. Taht eliminates a lot of cahrachters from contention and limits you basically to snake,pit,rob,tlink,zelda, samus and the space animals.

 

[Flow Wolf]

So...much...drama

 

[xyouxarexuglyx2]

There's no such thing as a perfect combo, or more like, perfect combos hardly exist.