personal qeustion: How come people don't approve spacing/footsies in Smash bros?

[Conda]

I haven't seen any significant dash dancing by anyone in Smash 4 yet. Though it could be due to the 3DS.

You keep ignoring that more aerials could be autocancelled at least from what I've seen so far in Brawl. SH aerials are also footsy tools so this is very significant. If anything this largely nerfs Marth's footsy game to use your own example.

Anyway the original post said there were more options. Saying they were discouraged doesn't mean Smash 4 brings new options to the table. At most you could say it improves old ones. Though again, that isn't really the case.

Yeah there's no cheese in Smash 4's neutral game. Luma punishing you on hit is a great mechanic. So is Lucario getting insanely buffed everytime he gets hit.

Yeah, Marth has worse air-to-ground, but he has other strengths. I think you're mistaking "Smash 4 has a better footsies game" with "Every character in Smash 4 is better at footsies."

And yes - there are more options.: more characters and less cheese to discourage different movement styles, as well as less polarized matchups due to technicalities (ie marth grab-release chaining Ness), more shield stun, more breakable shields, balanced movesets across the board (variability and more options for more characters), and punishable airdodges.

 

[Zork]

You still haven't listed a single option that wasn't already present in Brawl. Saying there are no polarizing matchups this early on means nothing. Though you should know infinites for Smash 4 on some characters have already been discovered so there goes that theory.

Edit:

Air dodges are more punishable but rolls are less punishable. And bad air dodges could at least be frame trapped/punished on reaction in Brawl (don't know why you implied they weren't punishable), a lot of rolls in this game seem too good to punish on reaction, you basically hope for the hard read.

Also shields are also better than ever before. They seem bigger on average, deplete slower and there is less shield stun. I don't think a few characters having shield breaker moves really counteracts this.

 

[Conda]

You still haven't listed a single option that wasn't already present in Brawl. Saying there are no polarizing matchups this early on means nothing. Though you should know infinites for Smash 4 on some characters have already been discovered so there goes that theory.

Who is saying there is a new mechanic in Smash 4? I can't make an argument about a BRAND NEW FEATURE because we both know there isn't one. Smash 4 improved on Brawl's mechanics and balance and fixed many things, and that is what makes footsies so different this time around. The changes have changed so much about ALL of Smash 4 - not just footsies, but aerial combat, off-stage play, and so forth.
THIS is the argument.

If you are not accepting this as the argument, then that's not my problem. If you will ONLY accept a "new mechanic" as a counter-argument, then why should I continue?

I'll continue anyway, because I'm a masochist. Infinite jabs in brawl (useless) now have finishers. You cannot DI out of the majority of multi-hit moves anymore (making many moves actually useful now). Stage spikes require tech-input or else you bounce. Ledges do not infinitely provide invulnerability. Tether-grabs have less miss-delay. Knockback is lower at low %s generally across the board. Flying isn't a thing anymore. Dash Dancing was not only risky in brawl, but slow and telegraphed. Acting out of pivots/dashes was very different. Shield Breakers make shields less safe in general, and many characters possess the ability to pressure shields and threaten it to break, or just break it outright with a special or custom. Brawl has chaingrabs, Smash does not.

How are any of those things not good answers to your insisting premise?

Heck, the change to chaingrabs is a big deal on its own. Grabbing is not as powerful as a result, and we end up having a footsies game that focuses more on tilts and smashes, and less on grabs. You can't just end a footsies battle by initiating an infinite grab-based combo. Characters who could chaingrab became much better at footsies in Brawl, for example.

In Smash 4 the stage is more even as 'being able to chaingrab' or 'being able to force trips' or 'being able to stun' or 'being able to attack with infinite priority' is no longer a requirement to compete in footsties battles.

You can actually be a generic fighter in Smash 4 and do well due to the way your attacks work and flow together, or how strong your smashes are, or how you can punish enemy whiffs.

In Brawl, the metagame developed with top-tier characters being ones with gimmicks. Falco had his CG-spike, Dedede had his, ICs had their chaingrabs, MK had his general OP priority attacks, Snake had his dominant DACUS, Diddy had exclusive multiple forced ranged trips, ZSS had very powerful stuns, etcetera etcetera.

All of these things have been changed or removed. In Smash 4, there is a LOT more going on when it comes to the footsies metagame, and it won't boil down to gimmicks as well because the developers actually tried to avoid those things this time around.

 

[Zork]

Snake's footsies were good not just because of his dash attack and DACUS. DACUS isn't even good for whiff punishing as the initial hit is weak (better off with dash attack). He has some of the best tilts in all of Smash, a good jab 1, and a great grab game (including pivot grab). A similar story holds true for most of your examples. It's not as black and white as you make it sound. Also DDD is not top tier in Brawl.

Anyway you are still ignoring how good SH autocancel aerials were in Brawl. So even if you want to argue the ground footsy game was dominated by these characters with polarizing options, that doesn't account for all the great aerial options other and some of these characters had.

Lastly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeT1rN4MLX0

This apparently has been confirmed to work on Sheik and Falcon for now going by the comments. Against them it's just as bad as what Ice Climbers could do. If not worse considering shields are even better this time around (and thus shield grabbing is as well).

 

[Conda]

I've said all I could say. That Rosalina combo is very specific, more than anything I mentioned above (I didn't mention mechanics that were similar in specificnessin Brawl, as it's make for a weak argument. Just like your counter-argument post above.).

Also, yes for the fourth time air-to-ground was better in brawl for some characters. Do you want me to just restate my points until I give up? I addressed this already - just because Marth can't SH fair as well doesn't mean Smash 4 as a whole has worse footsies game. Hitstun was so low that landing stuff like that still left the fight in a neutral position, which is not the case in Smash 4. But I know you won't respond to this point, so why do I bother. I typed a huge post for you. Let that be my legacy in this thread.

 

[Zork]

A moment ago you brought up a Ness vs Marth example in Brawl and the matchup being horrible on a technicality (grab release pummel infinite).

Now I post the same concept in Smash 4 and suddenly it's not a big deal because it's character specific? Oh I forgot, Smash 4 is new and shiny so it gets a pass! Even though you just bashed Brawl for the exact same thing!

Heck you even posted shield breakers (which are very character specific) as an example of shields being worse (when they are clearly better than ever).

Infinite jabs in Brawl were useless? What? Brawl Falco's 2 frame jab is one of the best in all of Smash. Many infinite jabs in Brawl could be jab cancelled anyway (I've heard this still can be done in Smash 4 for some).

 

[Conda]

A moment ago you brought up a Ness vs Marth example in Brawl and the matchup being horrible on a technicality (grab release pummel infinite).

Now I post the same concept in Smash 4 and suddenly it's not a big deal because it's character specific? Oh I forgot, Smash 4 is new and shiny so it gets a pass!

Heck you even posted shield breakers (which are very character specific) as an example of shields being worse (when they are clearly better than ever).

Infinite jabs in Brawl were useless? What? Brawl Falco's 2 frame jab is one of the best in all of Smash. Many infinite jabs in Brawl could be jab cancelled anyway (I've heard this still can be done in Smash 4 for some).

Very confused right now.

I said your Rosalina combo video is a weak argument for "smash 4 has as many gimmicks as Brawl" because it was far too specific. Not CHARACTER specific, but specific situationally. Marth's CG on ness could happen anywhere. Rosalina's combo requires luma to be in a certain specific position and for Sheik to not DI out of the initial grab a certain way. It's as specific as ZSS's infinite against Robin, and makes for a weak argument.

And infinite jabs sucked in Brawl. Yes, Falco's was good. Is that your counter argument?

Kirby's jab sucked, Fox's jab sucked, CF's Jab sucked, etc. Sakurai fixed them by giving them a finisher. They can do some great jab-based responses and punishes and pokes now.

Jab cancelling has nothing to do with infinite jab combos. They were useless except for Falco - that doesn't mean changing them is bad. I honestly have 0 idea what your point was here. You literally just said "yeah but Falco had a good infinite jab" and ignored everything else in the post.


And 90% of my previous post is unresponded to. I don't know why I'm keeping this thread alive, I've lost what your actual argument is. It seems like you just want me to continually list Smash 4's changes and then add an ending paragraph stating "And this is why Smash 4 plays different to Brawl."

 

[Zork]

I have been responding to it bit by it. If you want me to do it all in one post than here you go:

Who is saying there is a new mechanic in Smash 4? I can't make an argument about a BRAND NEW FEATURE because we both know there isn't one. Smash 4 improved on Brawl's mechanics and balance and fixed many things, and that is what makes footsies so different this time around. The changes have changed so much about ALL of Smash 4 - not just footsies, but aerial combat, off-stage play, and so forth.
THIS is the argument.

If you are not accepting this as the argument, then that's not my problem. If you will ONLY accept a "new mechanic" as a counter-argument, then why should I continue?

I'll continue anyway, because I'm a masochist. Infinite jabs in brawl (useless) now have finishers. You cannot DI out of the majority of multi-hit moves anymore (making many moves actually useful now). Stage spikes require tech-input or else you bounce. Ledges do not infinitely provide invulnerability. Tether-grabs have less miss-delay. Knockback is lower at low %s generally across the board. Flying isn't a thing anymore. Dash Dancing was not only risky in brawl, but slow and telegraphed. Acting out of pivots/dashes was very different. Shield Breakers make shields less safe in general, and many characters possess the ability to pressure shields and threaten it to break, or just break it outright with a special or custom. Brawl has chaingrabs, Smash does not.

How are any of those things not good answers to your insisting premise?

Heck, the change to chaingrabs is a big deal on its own. Grabbing is not as powerful as a result, and we end up having a footsies game that focuses more on tilts and smashes, and less on grabs. You can't just end a footsies battle by initiating an infinite grab-based combo. Characters who could chaingrab became much better at footsies in Brawl, for example.

In Smash 4 the stage is more even as 'being able to chaingrab' or 'being able to force trips' or 'being able to stun' or 'being able to attack with infinite priority' is no longer a requirement to compete in footsties battles.

You can actually be a generic fighter in Smash 4 and do well due to the way your attacks work and flow together, or how strong your smashes are, or how you can punish enemy whiffs.

In Brawl, the metagame developed with top-tier characters being ones with gimmicks. Falco had his CG-spike, Dedede had his, ICs had their chaingrabs, MK had his general OP priority attacks, Snake had his dominant DACUS, Diddy had exclusive multiple forced ranged trips, ZSS had very powerful stuns, etcetera etcetera.

All of these things have been changed or removed. In Smash 4, there is a LOT more going on when it comes to the footsies metagame, and it won't boil down to gimmicks as well because the developers actually tried to avoid those things this time around.

1. The only reason I would accept a new mechanic as a counter argument is because the original post implied it gave new options.

2. If specific examples don't count than Ice Climbers grab doesn't count either. Once again you have double standards. Falco's jab being good does not count to you nor does Marth's aerial footsies and implied pressure but something bad like ICys does. You are clearly picking and choosing. Like seriously. Every time I give a counterexample you turn around go "yeah so what? Give me more". I could do the exact same thing.

3. You keep ignoring this. In GENERAL more aerials could be autocancelled in Brawl not just for Marth. This is a very significant footsy option in Smash that was more present in Brawl. So yes, even if you want to argue Smash 4's ground footsy games is better, its air footsy game is worse.

4. Shield breakers are something very few characters can do. So no they do not make shields less risky "In general". They are more rare than good jabs in Brawl. So if you do want to count them then you also have to count those. Again read above, please no more double standards.

5. Being able to play more generic and do well with everyone being a good thing is subjective. I could argue it makes the game a lot less deep if picking up a character and being strong in footsies with them is that easy. So no, that's not inherently a good thing.

6. At the end of the day, Smash 4's neutral game right now is not even looking like anything you described. There is no dash dancing, fox trotting etc. Watch any match and you'll mostly see either camping or dash attacks/run up shields/grabs. And rolls. A lot of rolls. That's pretty much it. And I'm not purposely looking at low level matches, I'm talking about what Grand Finals sets look like. Brawl again was similar except with less rolls and the added autocancel aerials option for many.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Rolling is for scrubs. I walk up to you and dtilt your ***** ass

 

[Zork]

Oh and lastly, you brought up Brawl's neutral game being cheesy at higher levels. Let me remind you that in Smash 4:

1. Rosalina and Luma: Luma punishes you while you are hitting Rosalina. That's right at any percent, the character punishes you on HIT. And unlike Ice Climber's nana you can't just get rid of Luma for the stock, he comes back in just a few seconds.

2. Lucario: He gets ridiculously buffed for taking damage. He's essentially rewarded for playing bad. I've even heard avid Smash 4 players insist that this character is going to cause a lot of upsets as lower level Lucarios are capable of beating much better players thanks to how he works. He just needs a few lucky hits.

3. Little Mac: Instant kills everyone with one move at +30 percents. You don't like chain grabs? At least chain grabs require tech skill and mental fortitude to do in high pressure settings. This character literally has a win button.

Don't get me wrong, you'll never here me claim Brawl's neutral game was balanced but Smash 4 isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows either. If anything it's even worse in that regard. I'd argue these 3 examples alone show much more cheese than anything in Brawl considering how easy they are to abuse.

 

[Conda]

Oh and lastly, you brought up Brawl's neutral game being cheesy. Let me remind you that in Smash 4:

1. Rosalina and Luma: Luma punishes you while you are hitting Rosalina. That's right at any percent, the character punishes you on HIT. And unlike Ice Climber's nana you can't just get rid of Luma for the stock, he comes back in just a few seconds.

2. Lucario: He gets ridiculously buffed for taking damage. He's essentially rewarded for playing bad. I've even heard avid Smash 4 players insist that this character is going to cause a lot of upsets as lower level Lucarios are capable of beating much better players thanks to how he works. He just needs a few lucky hits.

3. Little Mac: Instant kills everyone with one move at +30 percents. You don't like chain grabs? At least chain grabs require tech skill and mental fortitude to do in high pressure settings. This character literally has a win button.


Don't get me wrong, you'll never here me claim Brawl's neutral game was balanced but Smash 4 isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows either. If anything it's even worse in that regard.

These are actual things the developers designed. The developers being Sakurai and the Tekken team (a footsies-only fighter, mind you), and they balanced the game with these mechanics in mind. We just have to hope they balanced it well.

In Brawl, chaingrabs and locks and grab-release crap were things Sakurai didn't test for because he didn't care if it was balanced or not. Thus characters were designed without these additional things in mind. Big difference.

 

[Zork]

So something being very polarizing, abusable and imbalanced is fine as long as it was intentional? Are you trolling me at this point?

Because what you are basically saying is if everything you dislike in Brawl was in Smash 4 intentionally it would be acceptable.

Btw grab releasing still exists on Wario in Smash 4.

 

[Conda]

Never mind. Im just deleting this, my head hurts from having to spell so many things out. Am I really being asked to explain why designed strengths and weaknesses are better than unintentional strengths with no weaknesses to counterbalance it, because the developers weren't aware those strengths existed?

 

[Zork]

Plenty of people think Lucario is top 3 material right now and it's mainly due to his aura. Not some advanced tech. They do seem to have gone overboard with it, it's just too rewarding for something that isn't earned.

You're right. Luma is nothing compared to Ice Climbers because you actually have to worry about not losing your partner while playing Ice Climbers. You don't get them back for free.

Little Mac's KO punch is one lucky hit you have to land that is a guaranteed kill at low percents no matter how you slice it.

Also, Smash is never designed or balanced with the hardcore competitive community in mind so that's a moot point anyway. This Smash is no different. Unless you actually think competitive players part of the real scene only play on FD.

Btw Tekken is far from a footsy-only fighter. The reward for landing a bigger confirm is quite high, it can lead into hefty combos.

Never mind. Im just deleting this, my head hurts from having to spell so many things out. Am I really being asked to explain why designed strengths and weaknesses are better than unintentional strengths with no weaknesses to counterbalance it, because the developers weren't aware those strengths existed?

Am I really having to explain Nintendo is not exactly good at balancing games intentionally or otherwise especially for a scene they largely ignore? Or that it's impossible to weight pros and cons objectively and evenly?

"Oh we gave a character X thing that is 50% good. Let's also give them Y which is 50% bad".

Yeah...that's not how it works. If it did Smash 4 would be an impossible game I.E 100% balanced.

Unless you seriously believe a character like Rosalina (which I've already shown takes advantage of an unintentional exploit but would be OP without it anyway) is balanced. In which case there is no point discussing this further.

Edit:

Anything I haven't addressed at this point I probably agree with. Such as more landing lag when air dodging to the ground being a good thing.

 

[otter]

I think you guys are over thinking the whole footsie idea. Maybe its because i play street fighter but Brawl had a pretty cool footsies game because there were ground moves that didn't suck and that's not really the case in smash 4. Even character whose entire purpose is superior reach (DK, Marth) have ****ty moves with all the same hitbox which explains their early tier placing compared to Brawl. Sm4sh is just really "is your opponent attacking?" rather than "what move are they using and what is the counter?"

 

[Zork]

I also have extensively played SF4. You bring up a good point. When you nerf range overall, you no doubt nerf footsies as well. As it's harder to whiff punish and poke when you have be even closer to do it (which often seems to put you in grab range in Smash 4).

 

[otter]

I also have extensively played SF4. You bring up a good point. When you nerf range overall, you no doubt nerf footsies as well. As it's harder to whiff punish and poke when you have be even closer to do it (which often seems to put you in grab range in Smash 4).

In addition to range, the recovery seems very polarizing. Instead of trying to think of an optimal punish in smash 4, I find myself knowing that my opponent is either safe or I have 75 frames to punish with any move of my choosing. Rarely in between. This Is also very "non footsies".

 

[Zork]

Ah I see. That's unfortunate. I always thought that was something Smash could improve on in general as overall, the punishes seem a bit too black and white. So it sucks to hear it's only taken steps back in that regard and it's even more the case here than ever.

It's funny you mention that because finding optimal punishes in SF was one of my favourite things to do in the game. For instance, in training mode I realized Decapre has so much lag after a blocked/whiffed DP, you can literally walk up and do your max combo (usually starts from fierce) before she recovers. Whereas something like Oni's light Slash on block can only be punished by 2 frame moves such as SPDs.

In general for SF for punishes you consider how much meter you want to spend, choose between positioning/knockdown/damage, whether or not you are in the corner etc. and it gives you a variety of different situational options for your punish.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Smash 4 is beginners footsies because range and pokes have been so homogenized throughout the cast. What really sets chars apart is the reward they get from neutral which is really just like any other fighter really. Its a shame because a poke from many chars in this game is simply just a poke and with that in mind the top tiers become pretty clear. Sheik pokes you with d-tilt or a f-tilt and you are at her mercy. Not so much with say Pit or Mario.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Smash 4 is beginners footsies because range and pokes have been so homogenized throughout the cast. What really sets chars apart is the reward they get from neutral which is really just like any other fighter really. Its a shame because a poke from many chars in this game is simply just a poke and with that in mind the top tiers become pretty clear. Sheik pokes you with d-tilt or a f-tilt and you are at her mercy. Not so much with say Pit or Mario.

You are definitly correct when it comes to Sheik, but her F-tilt can be punished, it's just hard to time because the F-tilt recovers pretty fast.

 

[Terotrous]

Who says this? Smash Bros probably has the most dynamic neutral play of any game.

 

[RanserSSF4]

Who says this? Smash Bros probably has the most dynamic neutral play of any game.

read the OP's above!

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

I haven't seen any significant dash dancing by anyone in Smash 4 yet. Though it could be due to the 3DS.

A lot of people I've talked to had either trouble with it or broke it trying.

Wait for the WiiU before people use it more.

 

[otter]

Who says this? Smash Bros probably has the most dynamic neutral play of any game.

I think we're talking more about simply poking and counter poking, which can't really exist because most moves are bad with homogenized hitboxes. It's true that this is not a central theme of smash considering the entire nuetral game, but people were comparing Brawl's footsies (which were pretty cool) to Sm4sh's.

 

[Emblem Lord]

There is good and bad to the homogenizing process. The good is that feeling we have all experienced playing this game. That everyone "feels" viable. It "feels" like everyone can at least hold their own.

Only time will tell if that holds up in the long run and becomes actual fact for the metagame.

 

[Tagxy]

Smash 4 is beginners footsies because range and pokes have been so homogenized throughout the cast. What really sets chars apart is the reward they get from neutral which is really just like any other fighter really. Its a shame because a poke from many chars in this game is simply just a poke and with that in mind the top tiers become pretty clear. Sheik pokes you with d-tilt or a f-tilt and you are at her mercy. Not so much with say Pit or Mario.

Agree to an extent, but this is a very Marthy perspective . Pokes were a good tool in neutral in Brawl but the game didnt revolve around them too heavily so its too soon to determine what smash 4 will be like. Granted even in Brawl this was a hot topic that created a lot of uproar over marths strength in the game, so I dont anticipate agreement on this point except to point out its contentious nature.

To all that it applies, I mean no offense when I say this, but a clear way to demonstrate your misunderstanding of Brawl is to assume that the game frequently resets to neutral off hits and is played almost entirely in neutral. Brawl has the deepest, if perhaps complex, punishment game in smash (sans chaingrab shenanigans) that requires deep decision making and an implicit understanding of probability. Its also false to claim stage control does not provide you a significant advantageous position in smash.

If you wish to lodge complaints make sure they are grounded in understanding and honesty.

 

[otter]

Agree to an extent, but this is a very Marthy perspective . Pokes were a good tool in neutral in Brawl but the game didnt revolve around them too heavily so its too soon to determine what smash 4 will be like. Granted even in Brawl this was a hot topic that created a lot of uproar over marths strength in the game, so I dont anticipate agreement on this point except to point out its contentious nature.

To all that it applies, I mean no offense when I say this, but a clear way to demonstrate your misunderstanding of Brawl is to assume that the game frequently resets to neutral off hits and is played almost entirely in neutral. Brawl has the deepest, if perhaps complex, punishment game in smash (sans chaingrab shenanigans) that requires deep decision making and an implicit understanding of probability. Its also false to claim stage control does not provide you a significant advantageous position in smash.

If you wish to lodge complaints make sure they are grounded in understanding and honesty.

I think Emblem Lord and I were both agreeing with your sentiment.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Agree to an extent, but this is a very Marthy perspective . Pokes were a good tool in neutral in Brawl but the game didnt revolve around them too heavily so its too soon to determine what smash 4 will be like. Granted even in Brawl this was a hot topic that created a lot of uproar over marths strength in the game, so I dont anticipate agreement on this point except to point out its contentious nature.

To all that it applies, I mean no offense when I say this, but a clear way to demonstrate your misunderstanding of Brawl is to assume that the game frequently resets to neutral off hits and is played almost entirely in neutral. Brawl has the deepest, if perhaps complex, punishment game in smash (sans chaingrab shenanigans) that requires deep decision making and an implicit understanding of probability. Its also false to claim stage control does not provide you a significant advantageous position in smash.

If you wish to lodge complaints make sure they are grounded in understanding and honesty.

You just used alot of words to agree with me.

Poking is only one aspect of space control which is what the series us about.

There is a reason why the dev team chose to give virtually every character viable footsie options though. A marthy response indeed. Interesting how now a good chunk of the cast can now compete with him in footsies. Perhaps the devs felt he was the standard for which the cast should be able to battle for mid range control. It would certainly explain his nerfs.

Brawl also does reset to neutral often. That is indisputable.

 

[Tagxy]

You just used alot of words to agree with me.

Poking is only one aspect of space control which is what the series us about.

There is a reason why the dev team chose to give virtually every character viable footsie options though. A marthy response indeed. Interesting how now a good chunk of the cast can now compete with him in footsies. Perhaps the devs felt he was the standard for which the cast should be able to battle for mid range control. It would certainly explain his nerfs.

Brawl also does reset to neutral often. That is indisputable.

I did say I agreed with you, and the response was also limited to the first paragraph. My biggest contention was with how obvious top tier was based on their punishments from poke, although reading again I dont think it was meant it the same way I read it, or meant to imply Mario and Pit were poor characters.

Brawl allows the players to reset to neutral more often, but the game rarely forces a reset to neutral off of a hit. Even with that possibility, at higher levels of play the game is increasingly less likely to reset to neutral.

 

[Loota]

So is Lucario getting insanely buffed everytime he gets hit.

Plenty of people think Lucario is top 3 material right now and it's mainly due to his aura. Not some advanced tech. They do seem to have gone overboard with it, it's just too rewarding for something that isn't earned.

Correction: Lucario gets slightly un-nerfed each time he gets hit until he gets close to 100% from which point onwards he can actually be called buffed (that's when I see his moves dealing somewhat average damage and 95% happens to be the middle point of his max aura). That's when you're already in danger of dying which would mean that you don't get to play the character's strengths at all making him considerably less useful. It's not fun dealing only a few percents with all of your moves while at low %'s. If you do not manage to kill him early enough and let him live even past 150%, you will know why some people think he's top 3 material. The mechanic essentially rewards you for staying alive and safe with the risk of losing your whole character potential on dying too early.

Carry on.

...also, I can relate to that when someone is praising some Smash 4 mechanic as a welcome new addition to the series while not realizing that it has already been introduced in Brawl even if it may differ slightly. It seems that some people never gave Brawl a fair chance and mainly just resorted to hate on it.

 

[Doval]

2. Lucario: He gets ridiculously buffed for taking damage. He's essentially rewarded for playing bad.

He gets rewarded for having high %. That can happen if someone plays well enough that he avoids kill moves and getting gimped early. Deliberately falling behind by taking damage is a really stupid strategy.

The KO Punch bit is ridiculous. Mac can't do it on command, he can lose the punch, and every single one of his aerials has worthless damage, knockback, and landing lag. Can he even KO Punch in midair?

 

[ZombieBran]

Can he even KO Punch in midair?

Yes. It ignores shields and he has at least one combo (probably more?) into it.

 

[otter]

0% Lucario is not a bad character. Combine that with the fact that you spend much more time at a high percentage that other games, and that's why he is noticeably stronger.

 

[TurnUp]

Yes. It ignores shields and he has at least one combo (probably more?) into it.

But why would you use it in midair? it goes nowhere.

 

[Zork]

Yeah the thing is living to 130-150 percent in Smash 4 doesn't even look like an accomplishment. It's the norm. So Lucario only becoming super strong well after 100 doesn't matter, that's almost always going to happen.

I saw a match on stream the the other day. Lucario was up a stock but at high percents (which also means the rage mechanic was in place). On the opponent's next stock he KOed him at 60 percent with an up Smash. And 60 percent in Smash 4 would be equivalent to like 40-50 percent in previous Smash games.

I agree as a whole Little Mac is not that strong. I don't even think he'll be top 10 once people get comfortable with him on the Wii U version. I was just pointing out a mechanic like that is anti-competitive. Someone who got outplayed the entire stock should not win thanks to one lucky hit.

Smash 4 is beginners footsies because range and pokes have been so homogenized throughout the cast. What really sets chars apart is the reward they get from neutral which is really just like any other fighter really. Its a shame because a poke from many chars in this game is simply just a poke and with that in mind the top tiers become pretty clear. Sheik pokes you with d-tilt or a f-tilt and you are at her mercy. Not so much with say Pit or Mario.

An interesting outlook and one I definitely agree with right now. Don't forget Sheik's burst/whiff punish range with dash attack/dash grabs. Another thing you'll find common with most high-top tiers. They have good ways to punish lag a roll length in front of them.

The reason I'm not a fan of simplifying it like this is because I feel long time character loyalists aren't really rewarded in the neutral game. It's more just about how good you are in general. In Brawl you can tell just by how a known character specialist moves how much work they've put in with the character. They poke, pick options in footsies and space in a way only they can. It's hard to describe but if you watch players like Mr. R, Mekos, Gluttony, 9b, Salem etc. you'll see what I mean.

Lastly yes Brawl is heavy on resets but that's not the same as no character having an advantage after a hit. Stage space control is very important. If you've locked down someone on the ledge or are edge-guarding (and yes it's still big in Brawl) I wouldn't say that's both players being in neutral, one has a clear advantage. Heck Brawl MK probably has the best and most aggressive edgeguarding potential in all of Smash, that's part of what makes him OP.

The followup potential onstage is also still there, but you have to really read your opponents and frame trap them. Not to mention people forget Brawl has the most true combo potential on the ground in the series regardless of percent thanks to numerous chaingrabs (including several different zero-deaths), Diddy and his bananas and ZSS.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Brawl had the most nonsensical skewed risk/reward due to it's...

"character specific combos and chain-grabs"

Do not talk of such things as if they pushed the metagame forward. There is NOTHING thought provoking or interesting about getting zero to deathed off a simple mistake by say IC's and you have nothing in comparison should they make a mistake themselves.

 

[otter]

Brawl had the most nonsensical skewed risk/reward due to it's...

"character specific combos and chain-grabs"

Do not talk of such things as if they pushed the metagame forward. There is NOTHING thought provoking or interesting about getting zero to deathed off a simple mistake by say IC's and you have nothing in comparison should they make a mistake themselves.

If they make a mistake nana dies and the stock is mostly over. It was skewed in brawl but pretty perfectly balanced in melee. theyre barely viable.

 

[CoeusFreeze]

I play a lot of Street Fighter IV, and have been doing so competitively even longer than I have smash. Footsies are an essential part of fighting games, and dueling it out with safe pokes is an integral part of any bout. The problem with Smash 4's footsies, though, is that said footsies are not usually a safe option. In a metagame without L-canceling, there are few safe ways to reliably pressure foes in the case of most characters, a problem compounded by the sheer amount of characters who possess counter moves. This results in a problematic poking game, as maintaining pressure is difficult and often easy to punish.

 

[Zork]

Brawl had the most nonsensical skewed risk/reward due to it's...

"character specific combos and chain-grabs"

Do not talk of such things as if they pushed the metagame forward. There is NOTHING thought provoking or interesting about getting zero to deathed off a simple mistake by say IC's and you have nothing in comparison should they make a mistake themselves.

I was not aware ZSS and Diddy's combos were character specific. I wasn't aware tech chases, jab locks and frame traps were character specific as well. I think I've been playing Brawl wrong. I must have broken the game or something.

Peach has an infinite on the entire cast in Smash 4. It will be interesting to see how polarizing it becomes.

I play a lot of Street Fighter IV, and have been doing so competitively even longer than I have smash. Footsies are an essential part of fighting games, and dueling it out with safe pokes is an integral part of any bout. The problem with Smash 4's footsies, though, is that said footsies are not usually a safe option. In a metagame without L-canceling, there are few safe ways to reliably pressure foes in the case of most characters, a problem compounded by the sheer amount of characters who possess counter moves. This results in a problematic poking game, as maintaining pressure is difficult and often easy to punish.

Shield pressure and footsies are 2 completely different things. As a SF player you should know this. Footsies are about baiting your opponent to do a move just outside the proper range so it whiffs and you can whiff punish it. That's not the same as what can be done safely on block.

Not to mention most spaced autocancel aerials in both Brawl and Smash 4 (even if Smash 4 supposedly has less) are safe on shield.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Zork: Your sarcasm doesn't address what I said at all. Talk to me like an intelligent human being or don't respond to me. simple stuff. Sarcasm doesn't push discussion forward. It just makes you look pompous.

Also a frame trap and a read....does not compute. They are on completely opposite sides of the spectrum.