Rolls seem problematic in this game

[DaDavid]

I think it really is a matter of people not being used to how rolls worked in prior games because they used to be garbage. I for one don't really find it too difficult to read and punish rolls and I think part of it is because me and my friends could never break the habit of rolling pretty frequently in Melee and Brawl. but what PizzaWenisaur says is definitely true: sometimes you can only manage to get a lackluster punish off of a roll, which realistically might not be enough to change the momentum of a match, especially if you're behind.

 

[san.]

Conclusions can really only be drawn with frame data. Dash roll towards an opponent still seems to be punishable by most everyone in the cast. I still don't find rolling away much better than dashing away, though it is a much stronger option now. If the best back roll is 23 frames, that's still enough to avoid a punish if you throw out safe moves to gauge the response yourself. Rolling backwards also leaves more room for you to control the stage. I don't think buffing rolls was that great in practice, though, even though many of us probably wished our rolls weren't so bad in previous games.

 

[DeLux]

Reallistically, I would still contend the frame doesn't have too much to do with it.

For the context of rolls > I don't know if you've ever seen the classic Snake Dthrow to stutterstep reverse fsmash hard read option, but that's an example of an extremely heavy punishment possible with a move that's SIGNIFICANTLY longer than the frame data of a roll. Albeit that was extremely gimmicky, but the point of that is to take if you want to punish heavily, you'll have to make a commmitment aka a risk for that reward.

People seem to want to punish an option (that doesn't have a hitbox) that also gives up stage (which we'd call a low risk low reward option) with a low risk / high reward option. For this game, that's simply not the case even if it may have been the case in other smash games. Tacking on a dash attack poke or even having positional advantage to go for a soft read run past to pivot dodge scout option is like the definition of punishing a low risk / low reward defensive option with a low risk / low reward punish option.

If you want the biscuit, you're going to have to risk it. That means possibly harder commiting (thereby being vulnerable to low - medium startup options) if you want to cover the ground to get the hard read. That's not a bad thing, it actually demonstrates quite a bit of depth, albeit very defensive oriented.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Your statement assumes that everyone is here to exclusively discuss how to optimally play the game. This is obviously not true, as there are threads here to describe newfound gameplay mechanics, rulesets, etc. etc.. It's easy to apply "We don't gain anything from criticizing X" to anything in which we don't have control over the creation (television, music, the film industry, etc.) but criticism keeps media creation honest. Although it's obvious Sakurai doesn't care what we want in a general sense, it certainly wouldn't help if we simply rolled over and accepted each game without question.

Make a new thread called "How to defeat roll spamming" if you'd like a thread dedicated exclusively to developing counterplay. It's perfectly acceptable for people to post in this thread criticizing the effectiveness of rolls, and what their potency means for the competitive metagame (positive or negative)

Pretty much 100% agree with this.

Like I said earlier, I have no problem punishing rolls, they're still lame.

If I have to wait around and play "optimally" just to beat my opponent then what's the point in playing if I can't have access to the ability to play a punish game with: 1. The style I'm accustomed too, whether it be aggressive, flashy or defensive, 2. The character I want to play with? Know what that is? **** balance. At the end of the day I'm playing their game because I'm limited within the confines of my play style and character. If that's the case then why in the **** should I even play this game? Having fun and playing optimally should not be mutually exclusive.

This needs to be fixed, otherwise this game will encounter the same problems in previous iterations of the game.

 

[DeLux]

Pretty much 100% agree with this.

Like I said earlier, I have no problem punishing rolls, they're still lame.

If I have to wait around and play "optimally" just to beat my opponent then what's the point in playing if I can't have access to the ability to play a punish game with: 1. The style I'm accustomed too, whether it be aggressive, flashy or defensive, 2. The character I want to play with? Know what that is? **** balance. At the end of the day I'm playing their game because I'm limited within the confines of my play style and character. If that's the case then why in the **** should I even play this game? Having fun and playing optimally should not be mutually exclusive.

This needs to be fixed, otherwise this game will encounter the same problems in previous iterations of the game.

I think David Sirlin's book, "Playing to Win", had almost two chapters dedicated to this method of thinking...
Here is the first one

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

I think David Sirlin's book, "Playing to Win", had almost two chapters dedicated to this method of thinking...
Here is the first one

I've read it. **** that ****.

I have enough on my plate with school and work, if I can't play a game and have fun while being able to play my best then it's not worth my time.

I honestly could just go back to Melee. Lol

 

[DeLux]

I've read it. **** that ****.

I have enough on my plate with school and work, if I can't play a game and have fun while being able to play my best then it's not worth my time.

I honestly could just go back to Melee. Lol

And that's totally within your choice. But that's definitely something quite subjective that probably speaks more to your mindset than the game. "The game is not for me," does not equal, "The game is not worth playing."

Takeaway - Rolling doesn't "need" to be fixed. You want it to be fixed and you're entitled to your opinion. Your definition of "problems in previous iterations" are probably not the same as mine, given the rolls aren't a problem but just a different aspect of the game with which we choose or don't choose to play.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

And that's totally within your choice. But that's definitely something quite subjective that probably speaks more to your mindset than the game. "The game is not for me," does not equal, "The game is not worth playing."

Takeaway - Rolling doesn't "need" to be fixed. You want it to be fixed and you're entitled to your opinion. Your definition of "problems in previous iterations" are probably not the same as mine, given the rolls aren't a problem but just a different aspect of the game with which we choose or don't choose to play.

I think rolling needs to be fixed - as stated by my previous post. I think it would create a more healthy game - as stated by my previous post.

 

[DeLux]

It doesn't "need" to be fixed. The game is completely playable and not degenerate to a strictly dominant strategy because of rolling from a game theory standpoint.

If it "needed" to be fixed, rolls would make the game unplayable. News flash: they don't.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

And that's totally within your choice. But that's definitely something quite subjective that probably speaks more to your mindset than the game. "The game is not for me," does not equal, "The game is not worth playing."

Takeaway - Rolling doesn't "need" to be fixed. You want it to be fixed and you're entitled to your opinion. Your definition of "problems in previous iterations" are probably not the same as mine, given the rolls aren't a problem but just a different aspect of the game with which we choose or don't choose to play.

Now you're speaking based on implications, for I have never said that the game isn't worth playing, but you are right that I said it isn't worth "my time", but it may be right up someone's ally. And I still firmly believe that this will cause problems, perhaps not for those who are willing to surrender some of what they know and are capable of to play in the best way possible, but be an issue to those individuals who demand a variance in game play and a fruitful meta game not based on achieving an optimal punish in a 'tit for tat' based situational meta.

There is a balance with rolling because you get what you give; for a low risk punish you don't gain much ground and not too many advantages or a shift in momentum. A high risk punish gives you more reward for landing it, but you can get punished easier. And with the rage mechanic in this game, using low risk moves can give you more reward, but with what? Knockback? As some moves that combo at certain percentages will not be able to at high percents, which hinders the ability for the player to comeback, so it all reverts back to the same optimal playing, where as both players momentum are neutral.

I know how to win. I recently won a doubles tournament in smash 4 and placed well in singles, granted this was my first smash 4 tournament, and my first time attending a tournament in general in years since I don't have the time or drive to do so, but being able to enjoy the game in a variance of ways not limited to just trying to win is always welcomed, and dismissing players as scrubs solely because they don't adapt a linear group think based mentality is poisonous, and in my opinion, is just as scrubby as the players you are accusing. For some of us, playing a game is a privilege, and there is nothing wrong with trying to gain as much as you can, whether it be friends, learning new tech or just being able to do the best the only way you know how.

And since Sirlin is such a hot shot, when was the last time you heard about him winning anything? Practice and theory are completely different, and based on his standing in the community he is the pinnacle of that statement.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

It doesn't "need" to be fixed. The game is completely playable and not degenerate to a strictly dominant strategy because of rolling from a game theory standpoint.
If it "needed" to be fixed, rolls would make the game unplayable. News flash: they don't.

Just because an aspect of a game might not be balanced correctly doesn't mean that the game is unplayable.
That makes zero sense. Nobody said the game is unplayable.

 

[theunabletable]

So you're talking about a situation where if they roll away from you and you don't react to it by overcommitting, they can't punish you because they gave you space. Further if you do react to it, you are able to tack on some finite punishment depending on the character you're using.

I'm talking about a collection of situations, not just one. That is one type of situation I refer to.

So the problem here is overcommitting as opposed to rolling away being "too powerful" from a risk/reward perspective, let's be real. Overcommitting is a player decision problem, not a game design problem. In theory, the heavier you decide and leave yourself open to being punished by something other than reverse roll, the heavier punish you'd be able to net. For example, if you waited to soft confirm the roll, you might be able to dash attack. If you went on a full hard read and ran preemptively expecting a roll, you'd net an usmash (aka a kill move), but you'd leave yourself open to getting hit preemptively for an aggressive dash. It's actually a pretty solid yomi-loop.

Upfront, your style of taking someone's post, and redefining it within your own vocabulary makes it very difficult to tell if my point has been interpreted correctly. It's hard to tell whether my central point is being addressed, if I'm being strawmanned, or if I was understood in the first place.

Anyways, you'd net an upsmash if you both A) Preemptively ran expecting a roll, and B) Initiated the upsmash before seeing a roll, and (it would seem with many characters) released the upsmash on no visual cue or reaction, just on prediction of both the roll, and the timing of the roll within, it would seem, 5 frames.

That second element changes it a bit. Like... It's not like reads are just these things that we either have about a situation or we don't. As if we just either read the other player, or we didn't. Within a time interval, there are a wide variety of options that a player can undergo, which gets wider as the interval gets larger. Pretty broadly, guessing one or two actions that the player'll perform within that time interval is enough for someone to say that he "read" the other player, it would seem, anyways. So it might take a read to punish a roll in Melee, a read involving a good guess that he'll roll.

The more actions within that time interval that you have to predict in order to achieve your punish, the "harder" the read is. With 5 frames of endlag on rolls, and rolls which appear to be faster than reaction time+charge-release time (although I suppose I could test this), it would seem that you have to read both the action, and the timing. You have to go in blind with your smash attack, like literally, your eyes are useless in a scenario like this, because there are no visual cues. There isn't preemptively charging the smash attack, waiting for the roll, and reacting to it by releasing the charge (think a Fox upsmash read in Melee. If a Fox reads your roll in Melee, he can run and charge an upsmash at the spot you'll be, and as long as you actually do the roll, he'll be able to punish it every time because he can react to the specific timing.) It doesn't seem much like this is doable, in some scenarios at least.

Do you agree with that premise, or disagree? At the very least, do you find it plausible, or reasonably possible?

For the record, when you ascribe this to me: "People seem to want to punish an option (that doesn't have a hitbox) that also gives up stage (which we'd call a low risk low reward option) with a low risk / high reward option. "

It's concretely not what I'm talking about.

It doesn't "need" to be fixed. The game is completely playable and not degenerate to a strictly dominant strategy because of rolling from a game theory standpoint.
If it "needed" to be fixed, rolls would make the game unplayable. News flash: they don't.

Sirlin isn't really relevant in a scenario like this haha. When he, or I (although I've chosen never to use the word for fear of this particular connotation,) use the word "needed", we're referring to a fundamentally different type of "need" (or "ought imperative") than Sirlin refers to.

Sirlin's pseudo-philosophy is good for mindset-development and improving, and, well, playing to win. It's completely naive, though, to use as an arbiter for every issue related at all to competition. There are different layers of competition, all probably warranting their own derivations of "ought imperatives". In particular, applying the concepts in Sirlin's "Playing to Win" broadly to an entire community, as a justification for never changing anything (as an aside, it's already extremely close to being a naturalistic fallacy) unless the highest of high requirements are met leaves out what appears to be the most important element of competition: that the community playing it is in agreement that their game is interesting.

I could, in my competitive friend group, ban rolling, or planking, or edge guarding, or items, or whatever, and it isn't intrinsically scrubby. It's correlated with being scrubby, but, unless we circularly define "scrubby" in terms of wanting to ban that class of thing (which would lose the entire pejorative associated with it,) it isn't scrubby in itself. And it may serve to make the game more interesting to us, fueling us to actually play the game more, and develop other aspects of the game further.

The "real game" isn't what comes out of the box, it's the abstract entity that the players have a mutual agreement about playing. Sirlin's philosophy completely fails to account for the aesthetics of competition, and the tools sometimes needed to keep a game alive within a community. As players of a game, we can arbitrarily change any aspect of the game we're playing, and ban anything that we like for any reason what-so-ever, and it's just as justified as Sirlin's criteria.


This comment about Sirlin somewhat tangential to rolling, but "Playing to Win" was used as a response to someone (and I feel as if it's been implicitly used as a response towards me,) which makes it relevant.

 

[JamietheAuraUser]

I'm talking about a collection of situations, not just one. That is one type of situation I refer to.



Upfront, your style of taking someone's post, and redefining it within your own vocabulary makes it very difficult to tell if my point has been interpreted correctly. It's hard to tell whether my central point is being addressed, if I'm being strawmanned, or if I was understood in the first place.

Anyways, you'd net an upsmash if you both A) Preemptively ran expecting a roll, and B) Initiated the upsmash before seeing a roll, and (it would seem with many characters) released the upsmash on no visual cue or reaction, just on prediction of both the roll, and the timing of the roll within, it would seem, 5 frames.

That second element changes it a bit. Like... It's not like reads are just these things that we either have about a situation or we don't. As if we just either read the other player, or we didn't. Within a time interval, there are a wide variety of options that a player can undergo, which gets wider as the interval gets larger. Pretty broadly, guessing one or two actions that the player'll perform within that time interval is enough for someone to say that he "read" the other player, it would seem, anyways. So it might take a read to punish a roll in Melee, a read involving a good guess that he'll roll.

The more actions within that time interval that you have to predict in order to achieve your punish, the "harder" the read is. With 5 frames of endlag on rolls, and rolls which appear to be faster than reaction time+charge-release time (although I suppose I could test this), it would seem that you have to read both the action, and the timing. You have to go in blind with your smash attack, like literally, your eyes are useless in a scenario like this, because there are no visual cues. There isn't preemptively charging the smash attack, waiting for the roll, and reacting to it by releasing the charge (think a Fox upsmash read in Melee. If a Fox reads your roll in Melee, he can run and charge an upsmash at the spot you'll be, and as long as you actually do the roll, he'll be able to punish it every time because he can react to the specific timing.) It doesn't seem much like this is doable, in some scenarios at least.

Do you agree with that premise, or disagree? At the very least, do you find it plausible, or reasonably possible?

Honestly, I think it usually is possible to release the Up Smash with appropriate timing just as you would in Melee. Yes, you have to read the roll and run in with a charging Up Smash. That said, once you learn the window during which the foe is vulnerable you can at least react to the roll's vulnerability frames by releasing the Up Smash and smacking the guy. I don't see why you think it isn't possible to run in blind with the Up Smash and charge it while waiting for the roll just like Fox would in Melee, the only difference is you have to read the roll farther in advance because the distance it covers is greater and the total duration is shorter. Besides, you do have a visual cue for when the vulnerability frames are about to occur: you have the roll animation itself. There are a few characters where this isn't true, specifically Palutena and Rosalina, and as a result it takes a greater sense of timing to read and punish a roll from them as you have to know exactly when and where it is that they'll reappear, rather than being able to only partially memorize it and rely on the animation for the rest.

 

[otter]

The more actions within that time interval that you have to predict in order to achieve your punish, the "harder" the read is. With 5 frames of endlag on rolls, and rolls which appear to be faster than reaction time+charge-release time (although I suppose I could test this), it would seem that you have to read both the action, and the timing. You have to go in blind with your smash attack, like literally, your eyes are useless in a scenario like this, because there are no visual cues. There isn't preemptively charging the smash attack, waiting for the roll, and reacting to it by releasing the charge (think a Fox upsmash read in Melee. If a Fox reads your roll in Melee, he can run and charge an upsmash at the spot you'll be, and as long as you actually do the roll, he'll be able to punish it every time because he can react to the specific timing.) It doesn't seem much like this is doable, in some scenarios at least.

This is how I feel. If I know my opponent is about to roll towards me, and I do a preemptive down smash, I should be rewarded for that. What often happens is that they roll a frame or two later than expected (because I was making a blind decision) and safely roll right into my correct read and then I get punished.

The rolling player doesn't even comprehend what's happening. They're thinking "my sweet roll paid of again this noob must not know how to do it" completely oblivious to the fact that his opponent is on a different skill planet. This was the designer's intent.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

This is how I feel. If I know my opponent is about to roll towards me, and I do a preemptive down smash, I should be rewarded for that. What often happens is that they roll a frame or two later than expected (because I was making a blind decision) and safely roll right into my correct read and then I get punished.

The rolling player doesn't even comprehend what's happening. They're thinking "my sweet roll paid of again this noob must not know how to do it" completely oblivious to the fact that his opponent is on a different skill planet. This was the designer's intent.

Yea, I'm wondering from a design philosophy why someone would do this to rolls. Like I'm not seeing how this makes the game better...

 

[otter]

Yea, I'm wondering from a design philosophy why someone would do this to rolls. Like I'm not seeing how this makes the game better...

It makes the game more fun for the majority of players, who are bad. The better player will still win often, but there will be an illusion that the game was close. People will also be able to hide behind examples of the handful of players who can manage all these defensive options with superhuman reactions by saying "m2k can punish rolls, you're just a butthurt melee player". No I'm not, I just don't like struggling against average players when im making correct decisions.

Also, I feel this ties into the longevity of stocks and huge blast zones, which sort of create a "win by two" stipulation. Say that you have a feeling you're opponent is about to roll away from you, and you're a couple character lengths away from them, you're pretty much limited to dash attack as a punishment. This will never kill, but it will put them offstage, and give you a chance to make another correct read or the kill. Hence, win by two. The problem is that it's really hard to get reads on these defensive options, let alone several in a row. You have to be WAY better than your opponent to get a clear victory. Even if you make several more correct reads than your opponent with reasonable punishes and you're up 150% to 50% in the final stock, the game is sill going to be decided by whoever gets the first haymaker regardless of percentage.

 

[DeLux]

I'm talking about a collection of situations, not just one. That is one type of situation I refer to.



Upfront, your style of taking someone's post, and redefining it within your own vocabulary makes it very difficult to tell if my point has been interpreted correctly. It's hard to tell whether my central point is being addressed, if I'm being strawmanned, or if I was understood in the first place.

Anyways, you'd net an upsmash if you both A) Preemptively ran expecting a roll, and B) Initiated the upsmash before seeing a roll, and (it would seem with many characters) released the upsmash on no visual cue or reaction, just on prediction of both the roll, and the timing of the roll within, it would seem, 5 frames.

That second element changes it a bit. Like... It's not like reads are just these things that we either have about a situation or we don't. As if we just either read the other player, or we didn't. Within a time interval, there are a wide variety of options that a player can undergo, which gets wider as the interval gets larger. Pretty broadly, guessing one or two actions that the player'll perform within that time interval is enough for someone to say that he "read" the other player, it would seem, anyways. So it might take a read to punish a roll in Melee, a read involving a good guess that he'll roll.

The more actions within that time interval that you have to predict in order to achieve your punish, the "harder" the read is. With 5 frames of endlag on rolls, and rolls which appear to be faster than reaction time+charge-release time (although I suppose I could test this), it would seem that you have to read both the action, and the timing. You have to go in blind with your smash attack, like literally, your eyes are useless in a scenario like this, because there are no visual cues. There isn't preemptively charging the smash attack, waiting for the roll, and reacting to it by releasing the charge (think a Fox upsmash read in Melee. If a Fox reads your roll in Melee, he can run and charge an upsmash at the spot you'll be, and as long as you actually do the roll, he'll be able to punish it every time because he can react to the specific timing.) It doesn't seem much like this is doable, in some scenarios at least.

Do you agree with that premise, or disagree? At the very least, do you find it plausible, or reasonably possible?

For the record, when you ascribe this to me: "People seem to want to punish an option (that doesn't have a hitbox) that also gives up stage (which we'd call a low risk low reward option) with a low risk / high reward option. "

It's concretely not what I'm talking about.



Sirlin isn't really relevant in a scenario like this haha. When he, or I (although I've chosen never to use the word for fear of this particular connotation,) use the word "needed", we're referring to a fundamentally different type of "need" (or "ought imperative") than Sirlin refers to.

Sirlin's pseudo-philosophy is good for mindset-development and improving, and, well, playing to win. It's completely naive, though, to use as an arbiter for every issue related at all to competition. There are different layers of competition, all probably warranting their own derivations of "ought imperatives". In particular, applying the concepts in Sirlin's "Playing to Win" broadly to an entire community, as a justification for never changing anything (as an aside, it's already extremely close to being a naturalistic fallacy) unless the highest of high requirements are met leaves out what appears to be the most important element of competition: that the community playing it is in agreement that their game is interesting.

I could, in my competitive friend group, ban rolling, or planking, or edge guarding, or items, or whatever, and it isn't intrinsically scrubby. It's correlated with being scrubby, but, unless we circularly define "scrubby" in terms of wanting to ban that class of thing (which would lose the entire pejorative associated with it,) it isn't scrubby in itself. And it may serve to make the game more interesting to us, fueling us to actually play the game more, and develop other aspects of the game further.

The "real game" isn't what comes out of the box, it's the abstract entity that the players have a mutual agreement about playing. Sirlin's philosophy completely fails to account for the aesthetics of competition, and the tools sometimes needed to keep a game alive within a community. As players of a game, we can arbitrarily change any aspect of the game we're playing, and ban anything that we like for any reason what-so-ever, and it's just as justified as Sirlin's criteria.


This comment about Sirlin somewhat tangential to rolling, but "Playing to Win" was used as a response to someone (and I feel as if it's been implicitly used as a response towards me,) which makes it relevant.

I'm about 90% sure as far as my post goes that you're responding to, I meant to hit reply to the post directly above mine and not yours lol, my bad. That would explain the specificity of the situation. Will probably address the rest of this when I get a chance.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

It makes the game more fun for the majority of players, who are bad. The better player will still win often, but there will be an illusion that the game was close. People will also be able to hide behind examples of the handful of players who can manage all these defensive options with superhuman reactions by saying "m2k can punish rolls, you're just a butthurt melee player". No I'm not, I just don't like struggling against average players when im making correct decisions.

Also, I feel this ties into the longevity of stocks and huge blast zones, which sort of create a "win by two" stipulation. Say that you have a feeling you're opponent is about to roll away from you, and you're a couple character lengths away from them, you're pretty much limited to dash attack as a punishment. This will never kill, but it will put them offstage, and give you a chance to make another correct read or the kill. Hence, win by two. The problem is that it's really hard to get reads on these defensive options, let alone several in a row. You have to be WAY better than your opponent to get a clear victory. Even if you make several more correct reads than your opponent with reasonable punishes and you're up 150% to 50% in the final stock, the game is sill going to be decided by whoever gets the first haymaker regardless of percentage.

"Win by two" sounds pretty accurate - 'specially with edgeguards.

Honestly though, I think that design philosophy is flawed - not just from the perspective of the better player but also for the less-skilled one. I feel like it's just trading frustration for frustration. Getting absolutely wrecked stinks, but I find it a lot more annoying when someone is at a high percentage, he's in the lead, and I just can't land a kill move. At least when I'm getting wrecked I can be like "Ok - let me try to get at least one or two kills" but this new system has a type of futility that can be created that seems worse.

 

[Thor]

This is how I feel. If I know my opponent is about to roll towards me, and I do a preemptive down smash, I should be rewarded for that. What often happens is that they roll a frame or two later than expected (because I was making a blind decision) and safely roll right into my correct read and then I get punished.

The rolling player doesn't even comprehend what's happening. They're thinking "my sweet roll paid of again this noob must not know how to do it" completely oblivious to the fact that his opponent is on a different skill planet. This was the designer's intent.

If you can't time your smash attacks to him them out of a roll read, you need to learn to adapt instead of whining and johning about a new game. Then again, you might be several skill planets below your opponent.

I see people charge smash attacks and I wait to roll into them after I think the timing would be that they are forced to release it (ie maxed charge) before I reach the spot so I can just move straight into punishment, and not even have to move after inputting a roll. This even works in Melee, but that doesn't mean Melee rolls should have fewer invulnerability frames, it means my opponents need to get better at punishing.

Rolls are not fully invincible in this game (from what has been seen), so if you are missing punishes, you are doing it wrong. And if you don't punish properly, no you don't deserve to be rewarded, that's stupid - you deserve no reward, and punishment if your opponent can capitalize. That's the nature of Smash, in every game thus far.

 

[EdreesesPieces]

Rolls are hard to punish online because of input lag. Play offline and the story is different. Some characters have really good rolls that are unprecedented and hard to punish (Lucario and Little Mac) but I'd say overall they can be punished pretty hard.

If you really can't punish a roll but you infact "hard read it" why don't you roll one second before your opponent in the same direction and punish him after?

I also find it bizarre that you would think Jiggly has no roll punishes. I punish rollers alllll day with jiggly's down air. In fact, I hope for opponents to roll, because it's much harder to make a clean approach if the opponent isn't stupid enough to waste precious frames doing an attack that has no way of damaging me.

Rolls are great for escaping a pressure situation once in awhile. Use them a lot and they are still punished hard, despite the fact that they are indeed slightly better than they were in brawl.

 

[otter]

I see people charge smash attacks and I wait to roll into them after I think the timing would be that they are forced to release it (ie maxed charge) before I reach the spot so I can just move straight into punishment, and not even have to move after inputting a roll.

clearly I am unable to comprehend these high level tactics. disregard my post.

 

[Thor]

clearly I am unable to comprehend these high level tactics. disregard my post.

You didn't even address the rest of my post either, which shows your inability to defend your position.

Your post has been disregarded - you can be sure of that.

 

[Paul the Octopus]

You didn't even address the rest of my post either, which shows your inability to defend your position.

Your post has been disregarded - you can be sure of that.

He's being facetious because your post makes it clear that you either didn't read the thread or didn't comprehend it.

 

[Thor]

He's being facetious because your post makes it clear that you either didn't read the thread or didn't comprehend it.

You clearly didn't comprehend my post either. I understand he (or she) was being sarcastic, but it's much more amusing to simply treat them as serious in the interest of irritating them further. And he (or shee) didn't read half of my post either, so I see no reason to offer him (or her) a second serious response.

The statement he (or she) actually quoted was the least relevant chunk of what I said, straw-manning my argument as a whole - I assume he (or she) was trying to time punishes once he (or she) saw the roll startup, but I know people who start it before I roll then still complain that the rolls are too good. In Melee. Which is stupid.

He (or she) gave no arguments as to why mistiming punishes means he (or she) should still get the punish - if you miss your punish and expose yourself you deserve to be punished yourself - do you see Hbox johning about the invincibility frames of a neutral getup being too high at 11:54 here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fyo-v8pbXc) to allow sufficient time for a Rest (i.e., maximal punish)? No, he just adapts and fixes the issue, getting in position faster later.

We don't have frame data yet, but rolls are clearly punishable as is - if someone can't get the dsmash punish in the first month, then they probably should start with simpler punishes and just keep racking percent - nobody was perfectly punishing rolls the first month of Brawl either (or Melee, although that's way back), but that didn't mean rolls were necessarily broken in Brawl, people just had to adapt (Falco's Brawl spotdodge is broken, but people even had ways around that, so unless there is 2 or less frames of lag on rolls, it shouldn't be a massive problem for people who have played high-level Brawl - and there's nothing stopping anyone from adapting and getting better punishes as they become more familiar with the game). This was my primary claim and was completely ignored - so until he (or she) actually addresses what I said, I'm going to disregard his (or her) posts as rather whiny, desiring a game that's easier for someone to punish rolls instead of actually improving (since they ARE punishable).

I'll say what actually mattered again (slightly reworded for more clarity):

Rolls are not fully invincible in this game, so if you are missing punishes, you are doing it wrong. And if you don't punish properly, you don't deserve to be rewarded, you deserve the lag of a missed punish, and punishment if your opponent can capitalize. That's the nature of Smash.

 

[wannabe33]

It doesn't "need" to be fixed. The game is completely playable and not degenerate to a strictly dominant strategy because of rolling from a game theory standpoint.
If it "needed" to be fixed, rolls would make the game unplayable. News flash: they don't.

I think you need to read Sirlin more carefully.

Calling certain moves, characters, and techniques "cheap" and / or refusing to use them in competitively play speaks to a "scrub" mindset (in Sirlin's terms). But criticizing mechanics that are too safe, make the game boring to watch, and overcentralize the meta isn't "scrubby." It's smart.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

You clearly didn't comprehend my post either. I understand he (or she) was being sarcastic, but it's much more amusing to simply treat them as serious in the interest of irritating them further. And he (or shee) didn't read half of my post either, so I see no reason to offer him (or her) a second serious response.

The statement he (or she) actually quoted was the least relevant chunk of what I said, straw-manning my argument as a whole - I assume he (or she) was trying to time punishes once he (or she) saw the roll startup, but I know people who start it before I roll then still complain that the rolls are too good. In Melee. Which is stupid.

He (or she) gave no arguments as to why mistiming punishes means he (or she) should still get the punish - if you miss your punish and expose yourself you deserve to be punished yourself - do you see Hbox johning about the invincibility frames of a neutral getup being too high at 11:54 here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fyo-v8pbXc) to allow sufficient time for a Rest (i.e., maximal punish)? No, he just adapts and fixes the issue, getting in position faster later.

We don't have frame data yet, but rolls are clearly punishable as is - if someone can't get the dsmash punish in the first month, then they probably should start with simpler punishes and just keep racking percent - nobody was perfectly punishing rolls the first month of Brawl either (or Melee, although that's way back), but that didn't mean rolls were necessarily broken in Brawl, people just had to adapt (Falco's Brawl spotdodge is broken, but people even had ways around that, so unless there is 2 or less frames of lag on rolls, it shouldn't be a massive problem for people who have played high-level Brawl - and there's nothing stopping anyone from adapting and getting better punishes as they become more familiar with the game). This was my primary claim and was completely ignored - so until he (or she) actually addresses what I said, I'm going to disregard his (or her) posts as rather whiny, desiring a game that's easier for someone to punish rolls instead of actually improving (since they ARE punishable).

I'll say what actually mattered again (slightly reworded for more clarity):

I think the reason he ( or she ) responded like that is because you two are talking about two different scenerios. Obviously in yours, the person doing the Down-Smash made an incorrect prediction ( seeing as you could consciously pause your roll ). In otter's, the person doing the Down-Smash made the correct predtion ( seeing as they rolled into a preemptive Down-Smash ).

I believe otter is arguing that because the person made a correct hard read ( starting a powerful but punishable attack before the opponent even starts the roll ), it doesn't make a ton of sense that the game should also have such a strict timing on the punish ( especially if being off by a little means you end up getting punished ). It seems a little unfairly weighted for hard punishes to require both a hard read ( acting on something you cannot see ) and a specific timing. And rolling requiring less consideration.

Besides you didn't really touch my whole Shulk/Mario rolling away from the oppenent scenerio...

The belief that it's punishable therefore it's fair doesn't make sense to me. Technically speaking, even that 2 frame ( or even a single frame ) vunerability means it can punished. I think there is a difference between what technically is possible and what's realistically plausible.

 

[MarkT]

Just played my first legit awful boring game of keep away against someone who was more than happy to stall out the game a full 5 minutes by running around and rolling with a faster character. I play a very aggressive style of play and am pretty good at timing and pressuring, but rolling is so damn good! Yes you can punish rolls, but not with every character, and typically only with a medium at best.
Some characters have such ludicrous recoveries that even when you do land a nice medium or neutral they can safely return with many options. I mained Jiggly in melee, and megaman in this, and I'm extremely aggressive when edge guarding, but many characters also have no problem getting back to the stage no matter what. So combine a faster character with mostly invincible frames and a fail safe recovery and the game gets so frustrating and boring.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

Just played my first legit awful boring game of keep away against someone who was more than happy to stall out the game a full 5 minutes by running around and rolling with a faster character. I play a very aggressive style of play and am pretty good at timing and pressuring, but rolling is so damn good! Yes you can punish rolls, but not with every character, and typically only with a medium at best.
Some characters have such ludicrous recoveries that even when you do land a nice medium or neutral they can safely return with many options. I mained Jiggly in melee, and megaman in this, and I'm extremely aggressive when edge guarding, but many characters also have no problem getting back to the stage no matter what. So combine a faster character with mostly invincible frames and a fail safe recovery and the game gets so frustrating and boring.

Yea - I did a Shulk v. DuckHunt one time . It was sooooooooooooooo terrible. Even though DuckHunt ain't fast it was bad...

 

[ChronoPenguin]

Just played my first legit awful boring game of keep away against someone who was more than happy to stall out the game a full 5 minutes by running around and rolling with a faster character. I play a very aggressive style of play and am pretty good at timing and pressuring, but rolling is so damn good! Yes you can punish rolls, but not with every character, and typically only with a medium at best.
Some characters have such ludicrous recoveries that even when you do land a nice medium or neutral they can safely return with many options. I mained Jiggly in melee, and megaman in this, and I'm extremely aggressive when edge guarding, but many characters also have no problem getting back to the stage no matter what. So combine a faster character with mostly invincible frames and a fail safe recovery and the game gets so frustrating and boring.

Because of the potency of recoveries in Smash 4 it's not really about knocking them away so they can't recover.
It's hitting them again so they hit the blast zone.
Granted I've had multiple straight up ******** games today.

Yea - I did a Shulk v. DuckHunt one time . It was sooooooooooooooo terrible. Even though DuckHunt ain't fast it was bad...

Use Monado Speed. I faced a ******** duckhunt who basically rolled to one side of the stage, threw a can and some frisbees or popped his gunman...and when he got close he just went for a roll to the other side of the stage or a shield grab. It's definitely dumb.

 

[PizzaWenisaur]

Because of the potency of recoveries in Smash 4 it's not really about knocking them away so they can't recover.
It's hitting them again so they hit the blast zone.
Granted I've had multiple straight up ******** games today.




Use Monado Speed. I faced a ******** duckhunt who basically rolled to one side of the stage, threw a can and some frisbees or popped his gunman...and when he got close he just went for a roll to the other side of the stage or a shield grab. It's definitely dumb.

Next time that happens, I'll try that out. I may have gotten a bit flustered ( don't remember ) but ultimately most of Shulk moves are still unsafe on shield so outside of a grab there isn't a ton he can do to a overly defense players. I think.

 

[Carrill]

I was timed out by a Yoshi player today in For Glory... ended up extremely frustrated. He wasn't even a good Yoshi player. I had outplayed the person throughout the match. I had him 100% ahead of me in damage by the end of the fight and he pretty much just rolled and ran away until he managed to time us out. Then, he managed to steal the first hit in sudden death...

So, yeah... So far, I'm not a big fan of rolling in this game either.

 

[M15t3R E]

I was timed out by a Yoshi player today in For Glory... ended up extremely frustrated. He wasn't even a good Yoshi player. I had outplayed the person throughout the match. I had him 100% ahead of me in damage by the end of the fight and he pretty much just rolled and ran away until he managed to time us out. Then, he managed to steal the first hit in sudden death...

So, yeah... So far, I'm not a big fan of rolling in this game either.

So rolling is too good?

 

[Carrill]

@ M15t3R E

It might also be because of the fact that Peach isn't a particularly fast runner. If he had been rolling closer around me, I might have been able to punish his excessive rolls with Peach Bomber or with a down smash.

 

[Wildcardmar]

I haven't had too much trouble with rolling, but I haven't fought anyone decent who uses them effectively I guess, just noobs who roll constantly. I fought a Villager a while ago who rolled around like an infant for most of the match, throwing out Down Smashes now and then, but it didn't really do much, it's just annoying. Could rolling really be that abusable? I find short dashes much better for maneuvering.

My friends say that the rolls arent punishable, but u seem to be able to do it. Is there any videos that this exists.

 

[M15t3R E]

My friends say that the rolls arent punishable, but u seem to be able to do it. Is there any videos that this exists.

They certainly are punishable if done stupidly. I punish rolls with down smashes every now and then.

 

[Thor]

I think the reason he ( or she ) responded like that is because you two are talking about two different scenerios. Obviously in yours, the person doing the Down-Smash made an incorrect prediction ( seeing as you could consciously pause your roll ). In otter's, the person doing the Down-Smash made the correct predtion ( seeing as they rolled into a preemptive Down-Smash ).

I believe otter is arguing that because the person made a correct hard read ( starting a powerful but punishable attack before the opponent even starts the roll ), it doesn't make a ton of sense that the game should also have such a strict timing on the punish ( especially if being off by a little means you end up getting punished ). It seems a little unfairly weighted for hard punishes to require both a hard read ( acting on something you cannot see ) and a specific timing. And rolling requiring less consideration.

Besides you didn't really touch my whole Shulk/Mario rolling away from the oppenent scenerio...

The belief that it's punishable therefore it's fair doesn't make sense to me. Technically speaking, even that 2 frame ( or even a single frame ) vunerability means it can punished. I think there is a difference between what technically is possible and what's realistically plausible.

People clearly aren't reading what I'm saying. So I'll restate it.

I'm saying "Even if you make a correct hard read, if you mistime (or misaim" the punish for making the right read, you don't deserve landing the hit." Hungrybox missing that Rest is an example of it - so is every time you charge dsmash and release it too early or late - you didn't execute the punish, so you don't deserve the KB and percent. I said it before, I'll say it again: "
Rolls are not fully invincible in this game, so if you are missing punishes, you are doing it wrong. And if you don't punish properly, you don't deserve to be rewarded, you deserve the lag of a missed punish, and punishment if your opponent can capitalize. That's the nature of Smash." What part about this is unclear?

Punishes weren't terribly easy to begin with - Fox had only 6 frames of vulnerability (I believe) from a standard getup in Melee because of shine, and that 6 frames is still more than enough for consistent jab reset -> rest.

The rolling away is annoying [I believe this is the Shulk/Mario thing], but that's why you can dash and have options (ex: dash through the roller, pivot fsmash) or just force them offstage - dash attacks in this game (for many characters) will kill eventually, and the sting of 50 Marth fairs still kills even Captain Falcon in Melee (as uninteresting as you may find using fair 50 times, it will kill pretty much anyone). Or you can just keep forcing them toward the edge - don't punish with an attack, just reposition, or punish but don't always follow-up - and if they roll to the edge, you have them with their back to the wall - if they roll, fsmash will do quite a bit, and if they jump over you, that's why you have aerials (or landing trap with usmash, etc.). You also can just punish them and edgeguard - no you can't just flow-chart people but that doesn't mean characters aren't capable of gimping others. If they can get on the ledge and back onstage, you overextended.

I never said punishable = fair - I said that I think rolls are sufficiently punishable to where they are not some massive problem that people are making them out to be. Even Falco's spotdodge was punishable with practice - I think people practicing will make this less of an issue as people adapt to the new timing for punishing rolls.

I have fought some heavy rollers (and someone who actually rolled so incredibly intelligently I forgot about punishing them with actual moves and only read them for positional advantage - that matchup was difficult and we played multiple times, though I pulled it out most of the time, if only by simply taking full advantage of better positions) - it's not fun [at first] because you aren't hitting them as much, and it can be tedious adjusting to new roll habits (the "Always behind" vs "always away" vs "Always center stage" vs "rolls to edge and spotdodges and tries to bthrow", etc.) but against heavy rollers they pretty much always have habits, and for those that ever roll toward center stage, I can only say that pivot fsmash is a new and beautiful thing in Smash 4.

 

[DeLux]

I am slowly being converted to believe in Norse Mythology.

 

[KageJuin]

People clearly aren't reading what I'm saying. So I'll restate it.

I'm saying "Even if you make a correct hard read, if you mistime (or misaim" the punish for making the right read, you don't deserve landing the hit." Hungrybox missing that Rest is an example of it - so is every time you charge dsmash and release it too early or late - you didn't execute the punish, so you don't deserve the KB and percent. I said it before, I'll say it again: "
Rolls are not fully invincible in this game, so if you are missing punishes, you are doing it wrong. And if you don't punish properly, you don't deserve to be rewarded, you deserve the lag of a missed punish, and punishment if your opponent can capitalize. That's the nature of Smash." What part about this is unclear?

Punishes weren't terribly easy to begin with - Fox had only 6 frames of vulnerability (I believe) from a standard getup in Melee because of shine, and that 6 frames is still more than enough for consistent jab reset -> rest.

The rolling away is annoying [I believe this is the Shulk/Mario thing], but that's why you can dash and have options (ex: dash through the roller, pivot fsmash) or just force them offstage - dash attacks in this game (for many characters) will kill eventually, and the sting of 50 Marth fairs still kills even Captain Falcon in Melee (as uninteresting as you may find using fair 50 times, it will kill pretty much anyone). Or you can just keep forcing them toward the edge - don't punish with an attack, just reposition, or punish but don't always follow-up - and if they roll to the edge, you have them with their back to the wall - if they roll, fsmash will do quite a bit, and if they jump over you, that's why you have aerials (or landing trap with usmash, etc.). You also can just punish them and edgeguard - no you can't just flow-chart people but that doesn't mean characters aren't capable of gimping others. If they can get on the ledge and back onstage, you overextended.

I never said punishable = fair - I said that I think rolls are sufficiently punishable to where they are not some massive problem that people are making them out to be. Even Falco's spotdodge was punishable with practice - I think people practicing will make this less of an issue as people adapt to the new timing for punishing rolls.

I have fought some heavy rollers (and someone who actually rolled so incredibly intelligently I forgot about punishing them with actual moves and only read them for positional advantage - that matchup was difficult and we played multiple times, though I pulled it out most of the time, if only by simply taking full advantage of better positions) - it's not fun [at first] because you aren't hitting them as much, and it can be tedious adjusting to new roll habits (the "Always behind" vs "always away" vs "Always center stage" vs "rolls to edge and spotdodges and tries to bthrow", etc.) but against heavy rollers they pretty much always have habits, and for those that ever roll toward center stage, I can only say that pivot fsmash is a new and beautiful thing in Smash 4.

Only counts for fastt characters. Please upload a replay of you vs this person and you pick ganondorf. I would like to see proof.

 

[Smallfry]

Hey, just wanted to talk about something that I don't really see many people talking about. I've been playing smash competitively for a while, since '09 roughly. Been to tons of Brawl tournaments, plenty of Melee tournaments, I'm pretty comfortable with the series, and I'm, at least, pretty knowledgeable. Not that it's an accomplishment, but out of some 250 games, I have roughly an 85-90% winrate in smash 4, at least last I checked.

In that vein, I hope that the following isn't written off immediately for being a bad player; perhaps I am just bad, and I'll explore that as I see the metagame develop. In the mean time, rolls in this game are absurdly powerful. Not all of them, but a good chunk of them. Little Mac's, Sheik's, D3's, etc. They are so fast, with more than enough invincibility, that you cannot punish them on reaction. Very few characters have the frame data to even punish it on expectation (where you're waiting to see it, and then you attack afterwards,) most punishes will be powershielded, normal shielded, or miss due to a buffered roll/spotdodge.

Many characters can't even punish a roll on a completely hard read. For instance, Jigglypuff literally can't catch most characters as they're rolling away, she can't get there in time. Of course Jigglypuff is one of the slowest moving characters, but it isn't really an outlier of a situation. It would seem that many, if not most, characters arem't capable of it in the cases of the better rollers. I'm not as versed as with the middish rollers, nor have I made a list on which rolls are most effective.

Cross-up rolls can generally be punished, but many of them, especially in many matchups, require a read of both the roll, the direction of the roll, and the exact time the roll is done, because otherwise, the frame data is simply too fast for reaction time+punish-move-startup to hit. There's a very relevant analogue to Brawl here. In Brawl, Meta Knight has a very fast forward roll. I believe it has the fastest frame data (I think it was it or ZSS'? Someone here probably remembers better than I do.) It was fast enough to cross the opponent up with them actually not being able to punish on reaction.

People did punish MK's forward roll, with things like preemptive pivot grabs, charged smashes (think MK's stutterstep fsmash in the ditto,) etc, and it was largely enough to make the risk:reward not as favorable as other options, at least enough to make it a super common option. It was still a good mixup when you where in the range to do it, and it often baited the opponent to roll or spotdodge themselves.

In this game, some characters have rolls which are faster than MKs, and seem to have options out of those rolls which are quicker than MKs. As well, MK could never really use his roll repeatedly, because his backroll was ***. In smash 4, back rolls and forward rolls appear to be similar in speed. The metagame never developed, over 6 years, to the point where people could spot the forward roll and turn around and punish on reaction.

What I'm getting at is that when excessive rolling isn't completely mindless, the terrible kind you'll see on For Glory, for instance, it's completely unreasonable to punish, and the inability to punish will not improve if Brawl's metagame development is anything to go by. It looks, to me, like this is the direction of the game, with nothing really to prevent it.


Big wall of text later. tl;dr, rolls appear to be legitimately very powerful in this game, but because of how weak it is in prior games, it's associated with weaker play, and good players trend toward not abusing it. What is the community at large's opinion?

Ive Been rolling a lot more than in the past games.

 

[Shack]

Rolls are pretty annoying, but far from OP, even online. Most rollers are inexperienced online warriors. I do not think you will find tourney level players spamming rolls. The online warriors rely on patterns and autopilot (dash attack > back roll > ...). This means all you have to do is learn their pattern, THEN punish. Also do not forget about short hops, they are a lot more mobile than ground attacks and can be mixed in with empty jumps so you can go for grabs instead.

Also guys, just block... If DHD is rolling around throwing discs, they cant hurt you if you block or just move out of the way. Eventually he will stop if the last 15 attempts failed. And I think a lot of people are respecting spammers way too much. A lot of moves like DHD can be out prioritized by aerials and dash attacks.

If you think rolls are OP, go into a match vs a lvl 9 cpu and attempt to roll all game and see if you still think rolls are OP lol.