Sakurai Balancing

[Dracometeor]

Shouldn't have let him win. You should have awoken the competitive side in him. Should have destroyed him on every stage he picked with every item on just to show him you meant business.

Then I would have been "that" guy at the party.

 

[negativeX]

No, they can't. That's why Sakurai should balance the cast for competitive play, because the casuals will not know the difference one way or the other.

Most people I know are casual and say Ike is overpowered. If sakurai made him actually good in our minds he may be broken enough for the casuals that they will like the game a lot less.

 

[Second Power]

There are real fighting games out there for that.

There's another decent platform fighter?! Where?!
Partly sarcasm, partly genuine question. Every other fighting game I've tried other then Melee/PM I found boring. Smash is so radically different I'd love for someone to rip it off (other than the mascot fighter aspect).

 

[Shiliski]

There's another decent platform fighter?! Where?!
Partly sarcasm, partly genuine question. Every other fighting game I've tried other then Melee/PM I found boring. Smash is so radically different I'd love for someone to rip it off (other than the mascot fighter aspect).

Playstation All Stars Battle Royal.
There's also a Cartoon Network themed one but I forgot the name of it.

I would not say that they were considered to be great games.

 

[kazrisk]

Then I would have been "that" guy at the party.

Embrace it.

 

[Second Power]

Playstation All Stars Battle Royal.
There's also a Cartoon Network themed one but I forgot the name of it.

I would not say that they were considered to be great games.

Those don't have sandbox style combo system Smash has from what I've seen. Maybe I'm being picky, but that's really what makes Smash.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Most people I know are casual and say Ike is overpowered. If sakurai made him actually good in our minds he may be broken enough for the casuals that they will like the game a lot less.

I definitely agree that balancing at all levels is important, but I think more emphasis should be placed at top level play. A casual's interpretation of balance is all over the place and vastly differs from the next casual player. As long as it's "close enough" it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Saikyoshi]

PSASBR is totally underrated. It's also crazy unbalanced, but it gets way more hate than it deserves. You'd be surprised at it.

I don't know very much about Punch Time Explosion (That's what the CN one is called), so I can't tell you what it's like.

Most people I know are casual and say Ike is overpowered. If sakurai made him actually good in our minds he may be broken enough for the casuals that they will like the game a lot less.

Casuals consider Ike overpowered because his highly spammable smash attacks visually seem powerful, even though they're really not that effective. If Sakurai adjusted those, forcing him to resort to other, less immediately obvious options , both sides will see him as more favorable.

 

[RascalTheCharizard]

PSASBR is totally underrated. It's also crazy unbalanced, but it gets way more hate than it deserves. You'd be surprised at it.

PSASBR is actually a really cool casual platform fighter. Once you reach the competitive level, it's friggin stupid. Build AP to Level 1 in a single combo and then use a "kill confirm" (inescapable KO combo) to guarantee the stock. Sometimes a character can achieve both an AP racker and a kill confirm in one single combo. It's messed up.

 

[Saikyoshi]

PSASBR is actually a really cool casual platform fighter. Once you reach the competitive level, it's friggin stupid. Build AP to Level 1 in a single combo and then use a "kill confirm" (inescapable KO combo) to guarantee the stock. Sometimes a character can achieve both an AP racker and a kill confirm in one single combo. It's messed up.

PaRappa is freaking awesome. End of story. Which is why he's the first Mii Fighter I'm going to make, carefully attempting to recreate the feel of how he plays... That is, if Miis as a whole aren't Scrub-bed out in tourneys...

 

[Wazygoose]

I definitely agree that balancing at all levels is important, but I think more emphasis should be placed at top level play. A casual's interpretation of balance is all over the place and vastly differs from the next casual player. As long as it's "close enough" it shouldn't be a problem.

This reminds me greatly of a beer rating study done by a guy at Stanford who talks about how tastes vary with experience--if you're going to recommend something to someone that is an acquired taste, the best thing overall might not be the most immediately accessible thing for a beginner. He was trying to model an algorithm for a recommendation system that takes into account user experience, recommending products not only based on taste but based on experience and community zeitgeist.

I highly encourage everyone talking about balancing Smash4 to read the one-paragraph abstract of his paper and look at Figure 1, which is on page 2: http://i.stanford.edu/~julian/pdfs/www13.pdf

What this means for Smash4 and fighting games in general is that the best fighting game will be well-liked by everyone, but expert gamers will like the best fighting games more than casual players even though they are liked by both groups. Casual players might play and enjoy an advanced fighting game that is well balanced, but they won't appreciate it as much as experts.

People on this website want Smash4 to be the next Seven Samurai, but it is being developed to be more like the new Transformers--it won't win any awards with critics, but everyone will love it anyway.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

I think that's a really good analysis Wazygoose, as well as a good analogy.

Melee is Citizen Kane, Brawl is Transformers 2

 

[Dracometeor]

I'm glad you look up to him as a god. He's perfectly capable of making mistakes as well. Patches cost money and a lot of times are not hotfixed. Both of which Nintendo barely has and never does. Take a guess how many updates Brawl got. I'll wait for the final version and I'm still going to buy it regardless of how it plays. It might just collect dust like my copy of brawl does.

To bad the wii was incapable of doing patches due to its faulty online system. That doesn't matter though right? They should have made physical patches that you could go get from your local game store and download into your wii from a disc right?

Do not use Brawl as a reason for them not doing patches. Makes you look ignorant about the wii situation.

 

[Wazygoose]

I think that's a really good analysis Wazygoose, as well as a good analogy.

Melee is Citizen Kane, Brawl is Transformers 2

64 is... the Matrix?! What if I told you all your favorite Nintendo characters can come alive and fight? How would you distinguish the dream world, from the real world?

 

[RODO]

I wouldn't even go as far as to say it's an acquired taste sort of thing. It's more like a group of people saying that they like cheese pizza and another group saying they don't care what kind it is they just love pizza. Then Sakurai comes in and give us all Pepperoni or something.

 

[smashbroskilla]

To bad the wii was incapable of doing patches due to its faulty online system. That doesn't matter though right? They should have made physical patches that you could go get from your local game store and download into your wii from a disc right?

Do not use Brawl as a reason for them not doing patches. Makes you look ignorant about the wii situation.

So I'm ignorant because the Wii was incapable of doing patches? Well; that's some interesting logic there.

 

[TheMagicalKuja]

I think the point was SSB4 *can* have patches, and assuming it won't just because of Wii and Brawl is kinda faulty, which I agree with.

 

[Wazygoose]

I wouldn't even go as far as to say it's an acquired taste sort of thing. It's more like a group of people saying that they like cheese pizza and another group saying they don't care what kind it is they just love pizza. Then Sakurai comes in and give us all Pepperoni or something.

It's not so much it's an acquired taste as people who aren't into Smash don't appreciate good balance as much as people who are, even though both groups care--part of this has to do with the fact that casuals don't know as much what good balance actually is. And it's way more important for experts that it be balanced than others in general.

Although I must say, I do think it's good that they're looking at how they perform in FFAs and with items on, rather than just for 1v1s. Because on the other hand I think competitive gamers don't appreciate items, stages with random elements and moving parts, and FFAs as much as everyone else (which is a shame imho). That's actually what I thought made Mewtwo so good in Melee, the way he use items was really awesome compared to most characters. I feel like competitive Smash players would look at Optimus Prime holding a flaming sword riding a dinosaur and instead of just appreciating how badass that is, be all "but that's not faaaaaiiiiirrrr."

 

[Saikyoshi]

@ Wazygoose : Mewtwo was horrible in FFA, too, because his lack of weight and speed left him a sitting duck against three opponents. Not to mention that he had the only Down Smash in the game that WASN'T an area of effect attack...

 

[Malex]

It's not so much it's an acquired taste as people who aren't into Smash don't appreciate good balance as much as people who are, even though both groups care--part of this has to do with the fact that casuals don't know as much what good balance actually is. And it's way more important for experts that it be balanced than others in general.

Although I must say, I do think it's good that they're looking at how they perform in FFAs and with items on, rather than just for 1v1s. Because on the other hand I think competitive gamers don't appreciate items, stages with random elements and moving parts, and FFAs as much as everyone else (which is a shame imho). That's actually what I thought made Mewtwo so good in Melee, the way he use items was really awesome compared to most characters. I feel like competitive Smash players would look at Optimus Prime holding a flaming sword riding a dinosaur and instead of just appreciating how badass that is, be all "but that's not faaaaaiiiiirrrr."

I don't understand the point of balancing some characters for 1v1 and some for FFAs. Wouldn't that necessarily make a few characters better at FFA and a few characters better at 1v1? Why is this a good thing? As long as EVERY character is balanced on the same scale (instead of some for FFA and some for 1v1s) then it would be beneficial to all players involved. You won't have to pick heavy characters with strong control for FFAs or fast combo-y characters for 1v1s.

Also, I don't think competitive players think items are unfair, they just don't like the random element that is introduced into the game.

 

[Dracometeor]

So I'm ignorant because the Wii was incapable of doing patches? Well; that's some interesting logic there.

Totally missed the point.

Your ignorant for assuming Sm4sh will not get patches on the WiiU(which can do online patches)
Because Brawl did not receive patches on the Wii(which can't do online patches).

You made a statement that was ignorant of the wii inability to patch games.

 

[Wazygoose]

I don't understand the point of balancing some characters for 1v1 and some for FFAs. Wouldn't that necessarily make a few characters better at FFA and a few characters better at 1v1? Why is this a good thing? As long as EVERY character is balanced on the same scale (instead of some for FFA and some for 1v1s) then it would be beneficial to all players involved. You won't have to pick heavy characters with strong control for FFAs or fast combo-y characters for 1v1s.

Also, I don't think competitive players think items are unfair, they just don't like the random element that is introduced into the game.

I don't think they're making individual characters specifically good at FFA and others good at 1v1, but more like each character has at least some moves that are better suited in an FFA and in a 1v1 environment.

I understand the complaints about items in general, but don't understand why all have to be banned and not just some. Why do people not just adapt their play when random elements occur? For example, why are so many stages just straight up banned? I feel like that's the same as football players being all "No, we can't play at night, in the rain, if it's too hot, if it's too cold, at high elevations, if our best player is injured, if we don't like the referee, if it's an away game. It could influence the outcome of the match."

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

To bad the wii was incapable of doing patches due to its faulty online system. That doesn't matter though right? They should have made physical patches that you could go get from your local game store and download into your wii from a disc right?

Do not use Brawl as a reason for them not doing patches. Makes you look ignorant about the wii situation.

Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword got a patch pretty quickly after it was released.

 

[Saikyoshi]

Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword got a patch pretty quickly after it was released.

The SAVE DATA was patched. The disk was read-only.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

The SAVE DATA was patched. The disk was read-only.

There are ways you can patch on the Wii even if the disk is read-only.

Otherwise Project Melee wouldn't have been possible.

 

[Saikyoshi]

There are ways you can patch on the Wii even if the disk is read-only.

Otherwise Project Melee wouldn't have been possible.

P:M and other Brawl mods trick the game into reading files in other directories. That's not how official patches work.

We're getting off topic, anyway.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

P:M and other Brawl mods trick the game into reading files in other directories. That's not how official patches work.

We're getting off topic, anyway.

It's not off topic on that regard.

Yes it does trick the game into reading the game differently, but it is a way you can patch the game.

 

[Dracometeor]

It's not off topic on that regard.

Yes it does trick the game into reading the game differently, but it is a way you can patch the game.

But they require a physical copy of the patch files (SD cards) to insert do these "Patches".

Hence the joke about going to your local gaming store and picking up your "Patch".

For your own reference here are a few answers to the Wii not having Patches. http://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/23745/wii-game-patches

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Totally missed the point.

Your ignorant for assuming Sm4sh will not get patches on the WiiU(which can do online patches)
Because Brawl did not receive patches on the Wii(which can't do online patches).

You made a statement that was ignorant of the wii inability to patch games.

Honestly I don't think it would be that surprising if Smash 4 never got a patch (unless a game-breaking glitch exists, in which case they would have no choice). Even when given the hardware capabilities Nintendo games rarely have patches.

 

[Saikyoshi]

Honestly I don't think it would be that surprising if Smash 4 never got a patch (unless a game-breaking glitch exists, in which case they would have no choice). Even when given the hardware capabilities Nintendo games rarely have patches.

I don't think so. Every time I start a new Wii U game , there's always a massive block of update data that has to be downloaded. So patches are not only possible, but common.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

Meh, I don't own a Wii U, but I play my 3DS a lot and don't notice many updates. Sometimes you talk out of your butt and get it right, so we'll see.

 

[LancerStaff]

NSMBU got a patch for Pro controller support long before NSLU, Pikmin 3 got a patch every time new DLC came out (and added a free mission level) and got a stylus control scheme during E3, W101 fixed a figurine glitch, M&LDT had a glitch fix, MK7 had fixed Maka Wuhu, ACNL had numerous patches before the US launch, SLW added a control option for wisps, and NES Remix added Pro support and fixed a timer glitch.

SSB4 will get a patch of some sort in all likelihood, and since the two versions release months apart, SSB3D might get a balance patch to keep it up with the Wii U game.

 

[Malex]

I don't think they're making individual characters specifically good at FFA and others good at 1v1, but more like each character has at least some moves that are better suited in an FFA and in a 1v1 environment.

I understand the complaints about items in general, but don't understand why all have to be banned and not just some. Why do people not just adapt their play when random elements occur? For example, why are so many stages just straight up banned? I feel like that's the same as football players being all "No, we can't play at night, in the rain, if it's too hot, if it's too cold, at high elevations, if our best player is injured, if we don't like the referee, if it's an away game. It could influence the outcome of the match."

I cannot find the quote, so maybe I misread it at the time. Until then, I'll assume I made the mistake and agree with you.

There are a few people interested in creating an Item Standard Play rule set. We'll assume the rule sets of ISP to avoid all the straw mans of using the bad items as an example on why items shouldn't be used. The biggest complaint is that while recovering, the edge guarding player can receive an item that will "automatically" kill you. This is a very rare and but real possibility.

Should a player lose money because the computer generated a 0 instead of a 1? This is less like the things you mentioned and more like this.

A player shakes a defender and breaks away to the side line and is wide open. The QB throws him the ball and the only thing between him and the end zone is day light. He catches the ball and starts running for the end zone. Then the spectators see a flash of light midfield. The safety picks up something and throws it at the receiver. It's a bola. Takes him down. If only it was a flower or a sandwich a land mine, instead.

Not really the same as your situations.

 

[Wazygoose]

I cannot find the quote, so maybe I misread it at the time. Until then, I'll assume I made the mistake and agree with you.

There are a few people interested in creating an Item Standard Play rule set. We'll assume the rule sets of ISP to avoid all the straw mans of using the bad items as an example on why items shouldn't be used. The biggest complaint is that while recovering, the edge guarding player can receive an item that will "automatically" kill you. This is a very rare and but real possibility.

Should a player lose money because the computer generated a 0 instead of a 1? This is less like the things you mentioned and more like this.

A player shakes a defender and breaks away to the side line and is wide open. The QB throws him the ball and the only thing between him and the end zone is day light. He catches the ball and starts running for the end zone. Then the spectators see a flash of light midfield. The safety picks up something and throws it at the receiver. It's a bola. Takes him down. If only it was a flower or a sandwich a land mine, instead.

Not really the same as your situations.

I 100% agree that the outcome of a match shouldn't be determined by a single piece of luck/unluck--if you lost a match it should be because most likely you played worse, not because items favored you more. I don't think all or most items should be switched on, but things like sandbags and little pieces of food etc aren't game-makers/breakers. The principle itself of removing absolutely all "random" elements is what I disagree with.

So things like stages being banned is a bit too far (for most stages) in my humble opinion. That's more akin to the weather on gameday analogy. People are currently preemptively talking about banning custom movesets, Miis, Mii costumes, etc, and I don't understand why they would be unbalanced.

 

[Dracometeor]

I 100% agree that the outcome of a match shouldn't be determined by a single piece of luck/unluck--if you lost a match it should be because most likely you played worse, not because items favored you more. I don't think all or most items should be switched on, but things like sandbags and little pieces of food etc aren't game-makers/breakers. The principle itself of removing absolutely all "random" elements is what I disagree with.

So things like stages being banned is a bit too far (for most stages) in my humble opinion. That's more akin to the weather on gameday analogy. People are currently preemptively talking about banning custom movesets, Miis, Mii costumes, etc, and I don't understand why they would be unbalanced.

The problem with stages is that a lot of stage hazards can actually decide the outcome of the game. Just as much as certain items.

Some items would be ok. If it didn't mean I would also have to deal with sliding crates, exploding capsules, rolling barrels and all of the containers. That's why items are turned off completely. Because all of those containers can cause a match to be decided by Luck.

Custom moves are different though, they aren't luck based at all. You can see what moves your opponent selects so no surprises and no luck is involved. The only thing I can see them adding is a counter pick option, maybe Mario fast fireball helps in the Dk with Cyclone punch matchup. Or etc. This is something we would have to decide on if we want that ability or to make the players predetermine and let us know their moves. Custom moves are not a feature that can be banned before we (as a community) use them.

 

[smashbroskilla]

Totally missed the point.

Your ignorant for assuming Sm4sh will not get patches on the WiiU(which can do online patches)
Because Brawl did not receive patches on the Wii(which can't do online patches).

You made a statement that was ignorant of the wii inability to patch games.

So I'm ignorant because you were agreeing with me? Do you just like to throw the word "ignorant" around the internet? Dude...you're agreeing with me on the Wii patch point I made. We don't know what Nintendo will do with smash 4 patches yet. I was talking about the history of smash being connected to the internet. It's not my fault nintendo failed at having a decent network on the Wii. There should have been a network on the Wii and there should have been patches. I bought the adapter for it. How does that make me ignorant for pointing out a fact?

 

[Wazygoose]

The problem with stages is that a lot of stage hazards can actually decide the outcome of the game. Just as much as certain items.

Some items would be ok. If it didn't mean I would also have to deal with sliding crates, exploding capsules, rolling barrels and all of the containers. That's why items are turned off completely. Because all of those containers can cause a match to be decided by Luck.

Custom moves are different though, they aren't luck based at all. You can see what moves your opponent selects so no surprises and no luck is involved. The only thing I can see them adding is a counter pick option, maybe Mario fast fireball helps in the Dk with Cyclone punch matchup. Or etc. This is something we would have to decide on if we want that ability or to make the players predetermine and let us know their moves. Custom moves are not a feature that can be banned before we (as a community) use them.

I think it's too much to say that stage hazards can decide the outcome of the game, but more like they can influence the outcome of the game. The thing about stage hazards is that everyone know exactly what they are ahead of time, so there isn't any luck involved--this is unlike items, which appear out of thin air semi-randomly.

It may be hard to make a great case about items, but stage hazards/bosses are predetermined, and I think there isn't a great case for banning stages based on them. The only reason I see there being a need to banning a stage is when the stage changes platform/etc positioning to where the players just stand around for a long time until conditions change again, or where certain areas of the stage are dangerous enough both to approach and to leave and no one will move (camping). But many other stages have hazards and/or transform where this is not the case.

Everyone knows what stage hazards exit before the match begins. Wind direction and speed on gameday can influence a match, but both teams know what is happening at the exact same time. Depending on which team has the ball going in which direction, it may be unfortunate, but it's not unfair. It's just an element of the game that has to be taken into consideration. 90% of the time it doesn't determine the match, the better team almost always wins. Same goes for golf--players aren't allowed to say they won't play until wind conditions are exactly the way they want them to be, or exactly the same as when another opponent will be/was playing. Most outdoor team sports play in most weather conditions. It just lead me to the position that Smash players banning certain stages are akin being poor competitors because stage conditions affect how you play.

 

[Saikyoshi]

@ Wazygoose : The problem with certain stages vary.

Stages with vertical walls, like Peach's Castle Melee and Fourside, easily allow infinite combos. The match rests entirely on who can get to the wall first.

Stages that are overly large, like Temple and New Pork City, not only allow but encourage camping and stalling. Nobody wants to watch camping and stalling, and it's a chore to play against, too.

With stages like Norfair, the match is derailed when the hazard shows up. The fight has to completely stop in order to survive the hazard.

With stages that have walk-off ledges, characters normally balanced by their poor recovery have an advantage.

 

[LancerStaff]

I think it's too much to say that stage hazards can decide the outcome of the game, but more like they can influence the outcome of the game. The thing about stage hazards is that everyone know exactly what they are ahead of time, so there isn't any luck involved--this is unlike items, which appear out of thin air semi-randomly.

It may be hard to make a great case about items, but stage hazards/bosses are predetermined, and I think there isn't a great case for banning stages based on them. The only reason I see there being a need to banning a stage is when the stage changes platform/etc positioning to where the players just stand around for a long time until conditions change again, or where certain areas of the stage are dangerous enough both to approach and to leave and no one will move (camping). But many other stages have hazards and/or transform where this is not the case.

Everyone knows what stage hazards exit before the match begins. Wind direction and speed on gameday can influence a match, but both teams know what is happening at the exact same time. Depending on which team has the ball going in which direction, it may be unfortunate, but it's not unfair. It's just an element of the game that has to be taken into consideration. 90% of the time it doesn't determine the match, the better team almost always wins. Same goes for golf--players aren't allowed to say they won't play until wind conditions are exactly the way they want them to be, or exactly the same as when another opponent will be/was playing. Most outdoor team sports play in most weather conditions. It just lead me to the position that Smash players banning certain stages are akin being poor competitors because stage conditions affect how you play.

The difference here being that it's reasonable to remove these outside influences in SSB. The people who want these random stages gone are definitely in the majority.

 

[Beats]

I think it's too much to say that stage hazards can decide the outcome of the game, but more like they can influence the outcome of the game. The thing about stage hazards is that everyone know exactly what they are ahead of time, so there isn't any luck involved--this is unlike items, which appear out of thin air semi-randomly.

It may be hard to make a great case about items, but stage hazards/bosses are predetermined, and I think there isn't a great case for banning stages based on them. The only reason I see there being a need to banning a stage is when the stage changes platform/etc positioning to where the players just stand around for a long time until conditions change again, or where certain areas of the stage are dangerous enough both to approach and to leave and no one will move (camping). But many other stages have hazards and/or transform where this is not the case.

Everyone knows what stage hazards exit before the match begins. Wind direction and speed on gameday can influence a match, but both teams know what is happening at the exact same time. Depending on which team has the ball going in which direction, it may be unfortunate, but it's not unfair. It's just an element of the game that has to be taken into consideration. 90% of the time it doesn't determine the match, the better team almost always wins. Same goes for golf--players aren't allowed to say they won't play until wind conditions are exactly the way they want them to be, or exactly the same as when another opponent will be/was playing. Most outdoor team sports play in most weather conditions. It just lead me to the position that Smash players banning certain stages are akin being poor competitors because stage conditions affect how you play.

Halberd is a legal stage in Brawl, and it has stage hazards. I've actually seen a tournament match where a player lost his last stock to the claw, but I can't find the video at the moment.

As for the comparison to weather patterns, I don't think it translates over to stage hazards too well. There isn't much to be done about how the weather is on a particular day, and I'm sure if given the choice, people would rather play in good weather conditions opposed to having to deal with bad ones. Likewise, it makes sense that a lot of people just wouldn't want to deal with stage hazards since there are other stages to play on.