Big-Cat
Challenge accepted.
Lately, I've seen a lot of complaints regarding these two mechanics. Some constructive and some not. The biggest complaint I've seen is that these two mechanics benefit the attacked player which isn't necessarily true.
Rage has been characterized as a comeback mechanic, but it's as much of a tradeoff as Lucario's Aura. I can be at 110% AND have a stock lead. Stocks alone say that I'm the winning player. Put this into the hands of a character like Shulk with his stances and this becomes very powerful for Shulk if he's in the lead. If I'm at the same damage level but a stock below, it's a potential comeback for me. However, I may have just taken off a stock thanks to the rage mechanic, but now we're equal in stock, but I have more damage so I'm STILL the losing player. Now I have to repeat my work to ensure that I kill them before they kill me which is easier said than done. The way I see it, this mechanic does not inherently benefit either player as the trigger is entirely damage based.
Now for DI. This mechanic's been under fire since its discovery, or rather how it is in this game. My understanding of this mechanic is that it's a nine way tech escape based on which way you direct (or don't) the control stick. To me, this is conceptually the same as DI in the previous games with a far more intuitive input. So anyway, my beef with the way players are reacting to this is that people are concerned only about survival and combos. Combos or mixups that require less guessing are still present at the lower percentages as DI's influence doesn't kick in until later percentages. After a certain point, the game becomes about footsies and mixups.
Survival, while a valid concern, has taken overwhelming priority over the okizeme aspect of DI in most discussions I've seen. People rather talk about how they can't kill as soon as the opponent can reduce the knockback. Here's the thing. If you know that's going to happen, why not make them pay for it? I see it as me chasing my prey or setting them into an unfavorable position. For example, if I push back Little Mac with Link's AAA, Mac would likely benefit best by DI'ing closer to the ground. If I know is going to happen, then I need to find ways to punish that and make him consider DI'ing into the air.
One last thing. Theoretically, you should be able to REDUCE the amount of guesswork with the right attacks. An attack like certain NAirs hit all around and can hit an opponent regardless of where they DI to. The drawback is that NAir's typically don't have much in knockback. Meanwhile, a move like the Knee hits in only one direction, but the sweetspot is most rewarding.
All in all, people should be complaining less and looking to do something with the hand they've been dealt. If you still don't like the game, that's fine and dandy. Just don't write it off because you don't like the hand you're dealt.
Rage has been characterized as a comeback mechanic, but it's as much of a tradeoff as Lucario's Aura. I can be at 110% AND have a stock lead. Stocks alone say that I'm the winning player. Put this into the hands of a character like Shulk with his stances and this becomes very powerful for Shulk if he's in the lead. If I'm at the same damage level but a stock below, it's a potential comeback for me. However, I may have just taken off a stock thanks to the rage mechanic, but now we're equal in stock, but I have more damage so I'm STILL the losing player. Now I have to repeat my work to ensure that I kill them before they kill me which is easier said than done. The way I see it, this mechanic does not inherently benefit either player as the trigger is entirely damage based.
Now for DI. This mechanic's been under fire since its discovery, or rather how it is in this game. My understanding of this mechanic is that it's a nine way tech escape based on which way you direct (or don't) the control stick. To me, this is conceptually the same as DI in the previous games with a far more intuitive input. So anyway, my beef with the way players are reacting to this is that people are concerned only about survival and combos. Combos or mixups that require less guessing are still present at the lower percentages as DI's influence doesn't kick in until later percentages. After a certain point, the game becomes about footsies and mixups.
Survival, while a valid concern, has taken overwhelming priority over the okizeme aspect of DI in most discussions I've seen. People rather talk about how they can't kill as soon as the opponent can reduce the knockback. Here's the thing. If you know that's going to happen, why not make them pay for it? I see it as me chasing my prey or setting them into an unfavorable position. For example, if I push back Little Mac with Link's AAA, Mac would likely benefit best by DI'ing closer to the ground. If I know is going to happen, then I need to find ways to punish that and make him consider DI'ing into the air.
One last thing. Theoretically, you should be able to REDUCE the amount of guesswork with the right attacks. An attack like certain NAirs hit all around and can hit an opponent regardless of where they DI to. The drawback is that NAir's typically don't have much in knockback. Meanwhile, a move like the Knee hits in only one direction, but the sweetspot is most rewarding.
All in all, people should be complaining less and looking to do something with the hand they've been dealt. If you still don't like the game, that's fine and dandy. Just don't write it off because you don't like the hand you're dealt.
Last edited:
