bovineblitzkrieg
Smash Journeyman
Melee is Rearden Metal
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Scar on the Melee vs Brawl debate: What does competitive really mean?
- Thread starter Scar
- Start date
- Status
Ban3
Smash Journeyman
that wasted 3 minutes of my life
Ankoku's post gave me an idea. It is quoted here for reference:
Is it possible that competitiveness can be roughly calculated through mathematics? The formula would have to go something like this.
(Offensive Strategies) x (Defensive Strategies) x (Speed of Gameplay) / (Probability of "random" loss) x (Predictability of movement)
Two questions about the above:
1. Can a games competitiveness be quantified by an equation?
2. What elements of the equation are missing and/or need correction?
Is it possible that competitiveness can be roughly calculated through mathematics? The formula would have to go something like this.
(Offensive Strategies) x (Defensive Strategies) x (Speed of Gameplay) / (Probability of "random" loss) x (Predictability of movement)
Two questions about the above:
1. Can a games competitiveness be quantified by an equation?
2. What elements of the equation are missing and/or need correction?
That equation wouldn't work as you would have to have a way to find a universal constant for "Speed of Gameplay" and "Predictability of Movement," i.e a given gameplay speed that is considered 1 and a given level of predictability that is considered 1. Since you can't, it would be best it would be better to make change "Predictability of Movement" into "Movement options" using the number of movement options in all possible situations. If this number is high enough you'd have a large amount of movement options and a low level of predictability. Speed of Game play could be ignored as(assuming we're still doing Melee Vs. Brawl) it would be the same as both games run at 60 FPS so technically they have equal speed. Am I taking this too far?
Jack Kieser
Smash Champion
Yeah in a few ways. I didn't mean for it to generate a finite "competitiveness" rating, just a rough way to put one game above another. By "Speed of Gameplay" I did not necessarily mean how fast the game runs. I think we can all agree that Melee is a more fast-paced game then Brawl, and that both are considerably faster than 64. If you were trying to generate a legitimate number for the game it might be more effective to do it on a scale of 1 to 10 or 1 to 100.
Also, in retrospect I think "Predictability" should be removed because it is really a joint factor of the number of strategies and the randomness.
Well, if you want to use "Speed of Gameplay" your still going to need a constant. Either that or you would need data on the average amounts of actions(inputs) per second done by players in both games. Theoretically this is possible but you'd need use the same players for both games and both players would have to be equally familiar with both(so it would be like taking Pc Chris' Falco vs Pc Chris' Snake, M2K's Marth vs M2K's.......Marth and so on) as you begin averaging down you could form a relative constant for both games for terms of "Gameplay Speed"
TheWaft
Smash Journeyman
melee is more competetive because of advanced combos and shuffling, l cancellinf, wave dashing, other advanced moves, ect. Brawl lacks all of this, but I like brawls character roster much better
yoshi_fan
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 706
I'm posting something that mucho people hasn't figured yet.
You can't have a good point if you don't know the 2 games to a deep extent.
I commited this error lots of times in the past. No more.
I'm not saying much more in topic because i don't know really a lot about brawl, only videos... But i thought that what I said was good for the people
Anyway, i like more melee over brawl right now, because is funnier for me, i can move much quicker, i have a lot more of options, i have fun training, i can do MANY MANY things. In 64 I can also do MANY things, not as much as in melee however, but the gameplay is also deep and pretty funny, and the game (thanks to z-cancel = 0 lag) has LOTS of options.
But in the other side Brawl, the few matches i played were pretty boring. I can only do a few things to attack, like they have said before, run, jump or camping. The game has morphed into a hit-run game that hasn't nothing to do with the other game. yet, I like it, but I like vastly more the other two games, only because I like having options and lots of things to do. Simple as that
From my point of view, I think a game that has sooo few options... is boring, at least for me (who i like smash because is a game where you can move freely and do a lot of things)
Sorry for my poor english, anyway I think you can see my point.
You can't have a good point if you don't know the 2 games to a deep extent.
I commited this error lots of times in the past. No more.
I'm not saying much more in topic because i don't know really a lot about brawl, only videos... But i thought that what I said was good for the people
Anyway, i like more melee over brawl right now, because is funnier for me, i can move much quicker, i have a lot more of options, i have fun training, i can do MANY MANY things. In 64 I can also do MANY things, not as much as in melee however, but the gameplay is also deep and pretty funny, and the game (thanks to z-cancel = 0 lag) has LOTS of options.
But in the other side Brawl, the few matches i played were pretty boring. I can only do a few things to attack, like they have said before, run, jump or camping. The game has morphed into a hit-run game that hasn't nothing to do with the other game. yet, I like it, but I like vastly more the other two games, only because I like having options and lots of things to do. Simple as that
From my point of view, I think a game that has sooo few options... is boring, at least for me (who i like smash because is a game where you can move freely and do a lot of things)
Sorry for my poor english, anyway I think you can see my point.
LOL_Master
Smash Lord
yes it does give you more options
bovineblitzkrieg
Smash Journeyman
I think in the equation, you could define game speed as options/time. Both games run at 60 frames/second, but there's more possibilities in Melee per given amount of time.
It'd be a cool equation to set up based on logic, but you couldn't really assign numbers to it. We definitely could argue about the setup though. For example, is # of options defined as all possibilities or all 'reasonable' possibilities?
It'd be a cool equation to set up based on logic, but you couldn't really assign numbers to it. We definitely could argue about the setup though. For example, is # of options defined as all possibilities or all 'reasonable' possibilities?
Scar
#HarveyDent
How do you define reasonable? I'm to argue that a big part of what makes Melee special is that the obscure option that you really haven't thought of is sometimes the best one. Is obscure outside of reasonable, though?
That's a big part of what Melee is. In Melee, it's not just about executing a string of commands in order to pull off a shine combo--you have to be creative and explosive to some degree, too. Using the same strategy over and over will get you punished. That's what makes Melee so diverse.
bovineblitzkrieg
Smash Journeyman
Yeah I agree with you here, that's why I put reasonable in quotes. Sometimes the option you choose would normally be seen as stupid and unreasonable, but in the current context it's perfect.
That's why I don't think we could actually quantify options, because you don't really know what could possibly be a good option, and because what you do is limited/enhanced by the opponent. Some people have opened their minds up to more options than others...
It'd be more of an equation in theory.
LOL_Master
Smash Lord
it's reaction to the opponents position as well though, you may pull off a good combo at a certain position, and you could possibly have that chance again, the combo, however is not definitely unless the person is in the exact same position, also it depends on if you are hitting him/her at the spot/angle that could create the same or different combo, there's just so many ways, and no one really knows what combo they're gonna pull off, it's judgment, reaction, timing, and pizza, man im so hungry
Ban3
Smash Journeyman
bovineblitzkrieg
Smash Journeyman
pizza?????
Demon Kirby
Smash Champion
Yes please.
Scar
#HarveyDent
ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... disagree.
thumbswayup
Smash Master
Explain how you punish a Metaknight who spams tornado, or a Rob that spams lasers and gyros then.
Proverbs
Smash Lord
DISCLAIMER: I have not read all 4000 posts, but according to the notice on the front, did the minimum requirement by reading the first post.
Second disclaimer: I am not fully decided about my stance on Melee vs. Brawl.
Now, suggestion: Perhaps Brawl's metagame is going to come a lot more from stage opportunities. This may mean that our stage banning might need to be a bit more relaxed. I am currently working on a stage strategy for Ness. Currently I have developed an extremely long list of advantages and opportunities that Ness has on Green Greens that few or no one else has. Perhaps this is where real competitive Brawl lies. Metagame is still being worked on and Brawl might have a few tricks up its sleeve yet. Not all ATs are found yet for Brawl, there are more being discovered. This is the same with Melee. Although people claim that all ATs were found in a month this is not true. Not everything about the YYG was figured out until much later. I know that's more of a glitch, but I consider it an AT as it is still used in tournaments to win. People don't use the black hole (I hope) to win in tournaments.
Furthermore, the ATs seem to be much more character specific. For example: Lucas' zap jump, Ness' PK jump, the ICs chainthrows, et cetera. There are few advanced techs that are universal. This may develop a much more character focused style of playing. I think this is worth being considered.
As characters and stages are much deeper things to be looked into than the general game mechanics (as far as ATs go), more will need to be discovered before real the real judgement on competiveness of Brawl can be determined. Also, metagame does need time to develop, and the more brilliant minds have at least seemingly given up on Brawl. This does not help us at all.
All of that being said, I'm almost 100% sure Brawl will never be as competitive as Melee. But I'm not fully convinced that it won' t be better than Melee. Brawl fixed a lot of things that Melee needed fixed (less emphasis on recovery, more balanced characters, grabbing the stage from both sides, fluidity of the game), and thus Brawl should not be completely thrown out the window. Now I still don't think that Brawl will be as competitive as Melee is, but I think it can get near that level as metagame continues to develop. Already I have seen a ridiculous development in Brawl's competition in the past month or so. I in fact gave up on Brawl for a while due to the lack of competition until I saw more competitive players. I am currently only playing Brawl competitively, but I play all three smash games.
Now, the reason why I endorse Brawl being stuck with is because eventually SSB4 will come out. It's bound to happen no matter what Sakurai thinks or says. Companies want money and they know they can get it from this game. Now I think they're starting to realize the mistakes they made with Brawl, but I also think they should not underestimate what they did right in Brawl. Sure the characters are too floaty and there is a definite lack of hitstun, but the game was made ridiculously fluid. So much more can happen now in a fight in quick succession and much freedom is allowed with Brawl's game mechanics. This is a huge improvement and should be recognized. If we just stick to Melee they might give up on making SSB4, assuming we'll all just stick with Melee.
Now I don't think this should happen. I believe the next game can retain all of (or most of) the improvements from Brawl to Melee AND recover the competitiveness of Melee that was lost in Brawl as well as the more character-specific playstyle of Brawl as well as the more balanced characters.
So what would we end up with?
A game that has more characters than Brawl, is as competitive as Melee, retains a balanced roster, has better hitstun, is more fluid, has incredible depth of characters that provide many character-specific ATs, stage-specific strategies, keeps all of the improvements of Melee to Brawl, fixes Brawl's mistakes, and has no tripping (yes, this needed to be listed on its own!).
So, in order for that to be achieved, Brawl's shortcomings need to be stressed while not abandoning it. This way a new and better game can come out that is, in a way, a mixture of the two, allowing for balanced casual and rigorous competitive gameplay. That is why I am in the defense of Brawl.
And plus, if the whole competitive scene flocks back to Melee, SSB4 might just be some cheesy game which has no depth at all. Sakurai would have succeeded in his attempts to destroy the competitive scene and we would not have a better game. If we show that competition exists even in Brawl and do not give up, the only way to get rid of us will be to appease us and the casual crowd. This, I believe, can be done.
But for that to happen, the competitive scene of Brawl cannot be abandoned.
Who's with me?
Second disclaimer: I am not fully decided about my stance on Melee vs. Brawl.
Now, suggestion: Perhaps Brawl's metagame is going to come a lot more from stage opportunities. This may mean that our stage banning might need to be a bit more relaxed. I am currently working on a stage strategy for Ness. Currently I have developed an extremely long list of advantages and opportunities that Ness has on Green Greens that few or no one else has. Perhaps this is where real competitive Brawl lies. Metagame is still being worked on and Brawl might have a few tricks up its sleeve yet. Not all ATs are found yet for Brawl, there are more being discovered. This is the same with Melee. Although people claim that all ATs were found in a month this is not true. Not everything about the YYG was figured out until much later. I know that's more of a glitch, but I consider it an AT as it is still used in tournaments to win. People don't use the black hole (I hope) to win in tournaments.
Furthermore, the ATs seem to be much more character specific. For example: Lucas' zap jump, Ness' PK jump, the ICs chainthrows, et cetera. There are few advanced techs that are universal. This may develop a much more character focused style of playing. I think this is worth being considered.
As characters and stages are much deeper things to be looked into than the general game mechanics (as far as ATs go), more will need to be discovered before real the real judgement on competiveness of Brawl can be determined. Also, metagame does need time to develop, and the more brilliant minds have at least seemingly given up on Brawl. This does not help us at all.
All of that being said, I'm almost 100% sure Brawl will never be as competitive as Melee. But I'm not fully convinced that it won' t be better than Melee. Brawl fixed a lot of things that Melee needed fixed (less emphasis on recovery, more balanced characters, grabbing the stage from both sides, fluidity of the game), and thus Brawl should not be completely thrown out the window. Now I still don't think that Brawl will be as competitive as Melee is, but I think it can get near that level as metagame continues to develop. Already I have seen a ridiculous development in Brawl's competition in the past month or so. I in fact gave up on Brawl for a while due to the lack of competition until I saw more competitive players. I am currently only playing Brawl competitively, but I play all three smash games.
Now, the reason why I endorse Brawl being stuck with is because eventually SSB4 will come out. It's bound to happen no matter what Sakurai thinks or says. Companies want money and they know they can get it from this game. Now I think they're starting to realize the mistakes they made with Brawl, but I also think they should not underestimate what they did right in Brawl. Sure the characters are too floaty and there is a definite lack of hitstun, but the game was made ridiculously fluid. So much more can happen now in a fight in quick succession and much freedom is allowed with Brawl's game mechanics. This is a huge improvement and should be recognized. If we just stick to Melee they might give up on making SSB4, assuming we'll all just stick with Melee.
Now I don't think this should happen. I believe the next game can retain all of (or most of) the improvements from Brawl to Melee AND recover the competitiveness of Melee that was lost in Brawl as well as the more character-specific playstyle of Brawl as well as the more balanced characters.
So what would we end up with?
A game that has more characters than Brawl, is as competitive as Melee, retains a balanced roster, has better hitstun, is more fluid, has incredible depth of characters that provide many character-specific ATs, stage-specific strategies, keeps all of the improvements of Melee to Brawl, fixes Brawl's mistakes, and has no tripping (yes, this needed to be listed on its own!).
So, in order for that to be achieved, Brawl's shortcomings need to be stressed while not abandoning it. This way a new and better game can come out that is, in a way, a mixture of the two, allowing for balanced casual and rigorous competitive gameplay. That is why I am in the defense of Brawl.
And plus, if the whole competitive scene flocks back to Melee, SSB4 might just be some cheesy game which has no depth at all. Sakurai would have succeeded in his attempts to destroy the competitive scene and we would not have a better game. If we show that competition exists even in Brawl and do not give up, the only way to get rid of us will be to appease us and the casual crowd. This, I believe, can be done.
But for that to happen, the competitive scene of Brawl cannot be abandoned.
Who's with me?
SamuraiPanda
Smash Hero
- Joined
- May 22, 2006
- Messages
- 6,924
Beginning of tornado has low priority, and he is also vulnerable from the top, among other things. And if ROB spams lasers and gyros (i.e. if you play Overswarm) then you can grab the gyros and throw them upwards so he wont get those back for awhile. I made the mistake of powershielding the gyros. Don't do that, since the gyro disappears when you do. I figure the best counter to gyros down the line will be to catch them in midair. The item-catch mechanic is pretty expansive in Brawl, it can even be done while running, and I think the gyro counts as an item even when its coming out.
OS himself gave counter strategies to that ROB stuff in the SBR weekly character thread, and counters to the tornado were thoroughly discussed in the beginning of the thread for MK. If you don't read those, then I highly suggest you read some of the things the SBR members posted in there. Although, they are already a bit outdated. Like the one for Snake had some great counter-strategies that still apply, but I've already learned quite a bit more on how to beat him since that thread was done. Same with MK and G&W.
thumbswayup
Smash Master
Yeah I was just countering his arguement with that, but thanks for the advice. Diddy's bannanas stop it and I've actually hit him out of it with a b air twice before. I think it has to be hit at the right place right when he starts doing it.
With Diddy: nana, Ftilt, or Bair. Nado = free hits.
And you may find this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l7RSbqBmdY
interesting. Though I don't know if it will beat the nado yet (I would assume it does, but is quite situational).
SamDvds
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 734
in order to negate the tornado vulnerability from the top, cant u just land it or keep it on the ground? i sometimes sweep across the stage keeping the tornado on the ground so i can just use the high priority of the middle of the attack to get a hit, and then since its on the ground, i can pretty much attack right out of it.
Counters to overused moves or projectiles exist, but learning when and how to use them takes time. In Melee there are established methods to overcome certain things such as Falco's lasers or a Sheik spamming down-smash.
As the community as a whole learns more, spamming may begin to be seen less and less in matches as players are punished more for these tactics, but for now, it's still effective.
As the community as a whole learns more, spamming may begin to be seen less and less in matches as players are punished more for these tactics, but for now, it's still effective.
Mr.Victory07
Smash Lord
Nado spam gets weak to the point 0f near uselessness when overly spamed. And you could block, wait for him to drop down helpless
Ban3
Smash Journeyman
what i am saying is it usually happens (getting punished for doing the same thing repetitively) with most characters. just because metaknight can spam the **** out of his moves doesnt mean u can do it wit most characters
LOL_Master
Smash Lord
well, you see ban3...metaknight and snake have been owning pretty hard, iwonder why????
Mr.Victory07
Smash Lord
Not because they spam
Ban3
Smash Journeyman
even if thats true (which it is anyways, for one char) that's still only 2 char.
Novabound
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 156
No I didn't read all 269 pages. But I did read the first post and a few after that.
I don't have the exact wording I want to comment on, but I do want to say this.
Yes, melee, with its advanced techniques did, in a sense, make the game more in depth and did tip the scales signifigantly towards the more "Skilled" player. But I feel what happened is that the skill just grew with an enormous momentum and those whom didn't read the boards or didn't practice with the technical players were left behind to play in their sandbox, so to speak.
But what I feel Brawl did was actually level out the field and made strategy a much bigger factor. An inferior player in skill could actually out wit a much more technical player, if he has the right thinking.
"The definition of competitive that has received the most support is the innate property of a game allowing better players to win consistently. This yields my mantra, that which I repeat over and over to prove my point." -Scar (Forgot to get the proper quote code)
I guess what I'm trying to say, is this; should both games value skill more so than strategy to prove that one is more competitive than the other? Should one game value the faster hands greater than the faster mind to yield a more "worthy" player? I also think the following word should be defined to further the discussion.
Skill
–noun
1. the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentry was one of his many skills.
2. competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity: The dancers performed with skill.
3. a craft, trade, or job requiring manual dexterity or special training in which a person has competence and experience: the skill of cabinetmaking.
I like the first definition best. Rereading my post, it looks like I'm asking something of Scar. What's your value in this point you're trying to prove? Your argument is Melee is more Competitive than Brawl, but do you feel the reason should take into account complexity/depth of the game, nature of the players as a general populace, or the fairness of the game should be decided by the metagame. (You're free to find another value that better suits you : ).
And I'm sorry if this offends anyone and please don't attack me D: I do thoroughly enjoy playing both games both for fun and competitively. But I just kinda want to be part of this discussion for once. o.O;
Edit: Yeah, I got the definition from dictionary.com because I'm too fat to get up.
I don't have the exact wording I want to comment on, but I do want to say this.
Yes, melee, with its advanced techniques did, in a sense, make the game more in depth and did tip the scales signifigantly towards the more "Skilled" player. But I feel what happened is that the skill just grew with an enormous momentum and those whom didn't read the boards or didn't practice with the technical players were left behind to play in their sandbox, so to speak.
But what I feel Brawl did was actually level out the field and made strategy a much bigger factor. An inferior player in skill could actually out wit a much more technical player, if he has the right thinking.
"The definition of competitive that has received the most support is the innate property of a game allowing better players to win consistently. This yields my mantra, that which I repeat over and over to prove my point." -Scar (Forgot to get the proper quote code)
I guess what I'm trying to say, is this; should both games value skill more so than strategy to prove that one is more competitive than the other? Should one game value the faster hands greater than the faster mind to yield a more "worthy" player? I also think the following word should be defined to further the discussion.
Skill
–noun
1. the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentry was one of his many skills.
2. competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity: The dancers performed with skill.
3. a craft, trade, or job requiring manual dexterity or special training in which a person has competence and experience: the skill of cabinetmaking.
I like the first definition best. Rereading my post, it looks like I'm asking something of Scar. What's your value in this point you're trying to prove? Your argument is Melee is more Competitive than Brawl, but do you feel the reason should take into account complexity/depth of the game, nature of the players as a general populace, or the fairness of the game should be decided by the metagame. (You're free to find another value that better suits you : ).
And I'm sorry if this offends anyone and please don't attack me D: I do thoroughly enjoy playing both games both for fun and competitively. But I just kinda want to be part of this discussion for once. o.O;
Edit: Yeah, I got the definition from dictionary.com because I'm too fat to get up.
Ban3
Smash Journeyman
its okay this is a debate; we are supposed to disagree
Clai
Smash Lord
Technical skill and strategy are closely intertwined, as you have to use your mind in order to figure out how to place this skill into your strategy and incorporate it into your advantage. Technical skill allows your options to expand and see new opportunities. Unfortunately, technical skill plays a much more important role in Melee than what is comfortable for me, as usually how I perform is directly correlated to how my technical skill is at the time. As for outwitting those who are more technical, Aniki (a 2004 Melee master who mained Link and almost never wavedashed) would like to give a testament.
Of course, people are going to argue endlessly about the nature of competition between Melee and Brawl because they all have their own definition of "skill" as pertains to how their "practice, aptitude and knowledge" helps them to win in the game. People believe that since defensive strategy is valued more in Brawl than offensive strategy and because spamming is less punishable in Brawl, that the game requires less "skill" and thus is not valued as competitive as Melee is. Both games require a great amount of insight to determine the current situations and find an approach that works best; Melee does this faster, Brawl does this with patience. Find the innate level of competitiveness inside a game comes down to what type of "skill" is required and whether the players like this type of skill.
Silent Wolf hasn't won a major tournament? I would have thought he certainly did. Whoops.
Dude, you have to admit, if Tech Skill really was THAT important, Phanna would be winning everything forever. If anything he's even more technical with Samus than Silent Wolf is with Fox. Besides, tech skill was only hugely important with certain characters. It takes alot to be good with Fox or Falco, it takes very little tech skill to be good with Sheik or Samus or Jigglypuff, all characters that have been proven capable of winning tournaments.
Phanna? Most techincal? You know that first video showing missile canceling from platforms he AR'd.
Smooth Criminal
Da Cheef
Have you played against him, AZ?
Not being rhetorical here, I'm just curious.
Smooth Criminal
Nope, haven't. Just pointing out something I remember being AR'd but most people misinterpreted it as him really playing, and that was when the legend of technical Phanna was born (this was back in 2005 or 2006). I'm sure he is crazy technical, but there are more technical players out there.
- Status