Seriously guys, how are you all having trouble doing combos?

[Turbo Ether]

ITT people fail to differentiate between 'combos' and 'followups'.

This. It's been like this for years though. A lot of people that only know about Smash, fail understand what a combo is as a general fighting game term.

 

[Adi]

Actual combos no longer exists, it's all about follow ups now.

 

[marthmaster04]

I only really read the first page but yes I do agree with you lavis, the combo meter is really a stupid and inefficient thing to go by, even since 64 its been proven to be completely inaccurate in a LOT of situations. The combo meter doesnt even follow for some 0-deaths. If you wanna go for training mode combos fine, but it doesn't have to apply to every single string of moves thats in the game

. Lavis has the correct idea, A combo in smash is a series of hits that an opponent cannot escape from either by di, jumping or otherwise. Wether it be 2 hits or an infinite. Its always been this way. And personally, I hate it when ppl criticize by the combo meter, it really shows your lack of logic towards smash.

 

[AeryEcho]

Wow, Sonic_Wave, that was a lot that you posted O_o

I'll just have a brief little description of what I meant by each part/response to your response...I guess I wrote that in a bit of a hasty, harsh tone~

While punishment to the point of not playing is overkill, the punishment must be there so that you have at least some fear of being hit. In brawl, there are almost no attacks that will definitely sting into another, no bread and butter combos. There is no real fear of being hit, because as long as it doesn't kill you then it doesn't really matter. You can just airdodge and escape, or even use it as a chance to get a free hit back on your opponent. That is more like rewarding the player that got hit, because they get a free hit in exchange, but they don't have to trick you into getting hit. They can just hit you in your lag with a fast attack. That makes the defensive player have the advantage over the offensive one, which is a fundamental flaw when it comes to fighting games.

I guess that's true, but Brawl isn't exactly conventional...I dunno, I expect Fighting games to be a game in which constantly reacting and staying on your toes is the point of the game...
If I hit my friends once and then they can't do anything to escape the combo I've now put them in, my analytical mind wonders, "why have the combo in the first place?"
The thing is, a combo is just x amount of damage that you give in an inescapable string: it could very well just be an attack powered so that it deals that much damage in the first place, since most of the punishment is caused by that first hit...Well, that's just my two cents
Although the "reward" you mentioned for the attacked player isn't exactly true, if you don't pursue your opponent, they probably can't hit you back any easier than you hit them...
They were hit into the air, but they still have the same options given to you...they can airdodge or attack, but you can too...So yes, there are no more "combos" but it's by no means flipping it over so that the attacked person is at a pure advantage~
most attacks appear to have enough knockback to send the opponent away before the lag, but...
if an attack has THAT punishable lag without having the knockback to follow it up, it would likely be better to use it later on, when they have extra damage...

Although yes, I agree, punishment is lacking in Brawl: this is probably to appeal to the casual players and to shorten the gap: at most any given moment, all players are at an equal advantage of hitting each other, so casuals don't get destroyed and comboed "eternally" by the competitive...But for a purely competitive game, Brawl isn't exactly the most optimal...

Melee was actually very lenient when it came to combos. You had the opportunity to DI, Smash DI, and tech off of things, you had multiple lives to make up for a bad mistake, and you got knocked further at higher damages which made combos very much a spur of the moment thing rather than being as straight forward as other fighters and while in other fighters you're pretty much stuck if you let yourself get hit that first time.

The combos in Melee were thought up as they went on, as a reaction to your DI and attempts to escape, which is the most forgiving kind of combo mechanic that I've seen actually work in competitive play. "You can still combo, we're just going to make you work for it and give them a chance to possibly escape." That's basically how comboing in Melee worked, other than the bread and butter combos.

Agreed~
I don't in any way think that Melee was very strict for combos considering other fighters, but I personally didn't like the way combos were so hard to escape because I never really saw Melee as a traditional fighter: it seems like it should be rather lenient...
I think this because whenever My friends get hit around, I just sort of do a few easy hits, but they can't react, no matter what they do: it just seems like their options are a bit too limited, but...

I see what you're getting at there, as they need to have some options, but not too many...Otherwise, there's basically no difference between idle and being hit, since really, you're in the same situation for both. You've really got me there, it was a very good system~
I just have some moments where I guess it seems almost unfair how long the stun is...(I'm looking at you, chain throwers <_<) But otherwise, Melee definitely was a pretty drastic, yet effective system for competitive play~

Name one aspect of Melee that wasn't strategic. Have you ever thought that skill and reaction time could be a part of the strategy?

Items.
I'm only kidding, not really...Strategic, yet still luck based...I just wanted to bring it up out of the blue XD

Anyways, That's very true, but Melee's been brought to the point that everything is now predictable with only the most construed plans becoming anything out of the ordinary...
I know that everything in Melee was strategic, heck, almost everything in any game can be strategic to a degree...
What I meant was that people, once they connect a good hit, no longer have to factor reaction time much, since they have so limited options...But as you said before, limited options are pretty necessary...
It's really a double-sided coin, I guess they can't work both ways, can they? Allowing players to always have some route to escape, while not allowing them to get off the hook too easily...D:
Although...Wouldn't strategy and reaction constitute skill, as opposed to the other way around? (This isn't really important, but I just want to point out that I don't think that skill and strategy are exclusive of each other...)

We are talking about the highest level of play here. At that level, reaction time is no longer a factor. We will know exactly how much stun each move has, so we'll have a plan for whenever we get hit. We'll hit them back because there's nothing they can do about it. Melee's DI was anything but weak, and was a massive improvement compared to 64. Now you could not only SDI, but you could change the actual trajectory of the attack. That's one of the most unique things about smash! While it's possible to chain hits together, it's also possible for the opponent to screw you up by changing his DI! They took it too far in brawl though. Now you can't actually combo anybody, so there's really no point in following up after an attack (unless you out range them), because they can just hit you back.

I guess that's what bugs me about Melee the most:
The way people CAN reliably go and follow the hits is something I guess I just don't like...
I use it a lot, but I sometimes feel it's what's giving the speed characters that much of an advantage...
Anyways, Yeah, it certainly wasn't weak, I don't know what I was thinking... -_-u

But because they couldn't counter attack, and all they could do was screw you up, it meant that every hit you make, you ALWAYS should pursue...Sure, it doesn't mean it'll always work, but I know that if I hit somebody into the air, I MUST follow if I want to make the best of it...
I like adding consideration on to the minds of the players, I guess..
I like how in Brawl, you think, "Should I really follow this guy?" It adds another layer of thought process...sure, it's probably in the way of the competitive play, but I guess I'm not a competitively experienced person D:

If I ever made a game, you bet it'd be a major pain in the neck to play XD
I guess I like the idea of always having to balance your options with everything you do, and Melee comboing is slightly straightforward in that you know you have to pursue them, the only question being "how?"; Brawl encourages the question "Should I?" before you even ask "how?"
It must be a personal thing, I guess...I'm a human anomaly~ =D

Are you implying that there was some point where they weren't like chess? Smash, Guilty Gear, Naruto GNT4, Street Fighter, Melty Blood, ect. are anything but button mashers!

lol,
I never meant to imply anything!
I meant for it to be taken at face value...
Chess and fighting just seem so different...so the idea that games based off of fighting end up becoming as strategic as chess is just sort of amusing to me~
I must phrase this sort of thing better in the future, sorry about the confusion/offense...D:

Or that they have the common sense to realize that airdodging is now harder to punish and now is an extremely good option for avoiding followups! Combos do not exist in brawl because by definition, a combo is inescapable if the attacking player does not mess up! However, now even if the attack player plays perfectly, he can't really punish a mistake with anything more than one guaranteed hit. Don't you think he should be given the advantage if he's capitalizing on a mistake? Even in chess, if your opponent makes a mistake and you capitalize on it, then the opponent is put a few turns behind in their strategy. They now have to play catch up. That is the nature of competitive games. But brawl is simply being too forgiving, and forgiveness is really not that great in a competitive environment.

True, true...
But the thing about chess is that your given time to think about your opponent's possible plans...
I guess I just figured that if a game is in real-time, then it should force you to think "in real-time"...
Well, if you look at this differently, as opposed to being competitive, but just as a game in general...I think this is a fine game mechanic...
The game isn't the best competitive game, but as a simple game of enjoyment...
I think it's just fine that there's this move that allow you to escape whenever...
Of course, it just ups the necessity for mind-games...
Although you definitely are right that air-dodges are a bit overpowered when it comes to comboing...but I still think that it's an okay game mechanic: this game isn't designed to appeal to the competitive, I guess: it seems more targeted at the casual smasher....

The biggest gripe I have with Chess and Smash compared together, I guess, is that in Chess, your mistakes are allowed to be super-punishable, because you are given time to consider what your options are, so your risks will increase accordingly...
Smash is a split-second misjudgment and you're stuck until you're careening off screen with 50% extra damage D:
I dunno, but it just doesn't seem like the advantage should be that wide...
I still stand at the mid-ground: from my (limited) competitive view, Brawl has become a bit too lenient, but...
I still prefer it over Melee's...sorry...

I skip the next two comments because they're kinda covered already or soon to be...

Wait a minute, where'd that idea come from? Chess is not sterile at all. Each turn you have to think of a new strategy based on how your opponent's move fit into your strategy, and if you ever make a mistake then you are easily set back quite a few turns. One mistake can even cost you the game if your opponent capitalizes on it and doesn't make any mistakes of his own. That's exactly how it's supposed to be. Chess isn't that forgiving of a game either, so I don't see what you're talking about. If you make a mistake, and your opponent doesn't make a mistake, then you lose.

Yeah...I guess that was a tad "extreme" the way I put it...
("sterile"...wtf is wrong with me? XD)

What I mean to say is that...
Not that it's not punishable, by what I mean sterile, but that...
there isn't any unpredictability DURING and ONLY DURING your turn:
I don't have to think about you suddenly moving your piece while I'm considering my options...

But yes, on second thought/considering your comments, I see how a player's performance can never judge your skills in either of those games...
An epic win in Chess still relies on your opponent's skill as well~
likewise, a good "combo" (don't exist in Brawl D: ) will be affected by whether or not your opponent remembers to use the all-powerful air-dodge <_<

They should have that assurance, because that assurance is their incentive to go on the offense. If there's more risk than gain in a tactic then you don't do it. If attacking your opponent is more likely to get you killed then it is to kill them, then there's no point. Why should I ever approach you if you're the one who gets the advantage from it?

Where is my incentive for ever approaching? Will I only approach if I'm losing and will lose the match if the timer runs out? Why should I do anything besides turtle and let you come to me? I get no reward for attacking, because if I do then we just trade hits, but if I play defensively I have the chance to shield it and hit you back out, reseting the playing field but with you having more damage. When attacking, I can only tie. But when defending, I have a chance to win. Which option do you think I will chose?

...yes.
Yes.
I agree now...
Apparently, I have absolutely no insight on what a competitive game should be like...D:

By being so forgiving, this game has been reduced to prefer turtling...
Which is true...This basically overthrows my argument. Nice post~

...What was my argument? wasn't this thread about the concept of whether a person who couldn't combo 3-4 hits has a problem or not?
Well, I might be using the topic of this thread as a shield...trying to divert the subject so I don't have to answer that response...

And Ankoku, you are very right...Chess=/= Smash, and it really shouldn't...
<_<
But they have similarities, which makes it a nice comparison~
But perhaps...we take it too far.

In conclusion (wtf? Is this how I end this post?)
Sonic_Wave,
I am by no means a competitive gamer, or competitive anything...
I know nothing about what makes a good competitive game...
Perhaps I have no experience? Perhaps I am too easily swayed by your argument? Perhaps I'm insecure about my own?
Regardless, you have helped shed some light on this topic, and I thank you for it~

Awesome post, Sonic_Wave, you've shown me exactly what a competitive view is and what it stands for...

But even though Brawl is a pretty suckish game for the sake of good competition,
I'm still gonna play it and have a heck of a time~

 

[Dark Sonic]

. Lavis has the correct idea, A combo in smash is a series of hits that an opponent cannot escape from either by di, jumping or otherwise Wether it be 2 hits or an infinite. Its always been this way. And personally, I hate it when ppl criticize by the combo meter, it really shows your lack of logic towards smash.

The combo is one of the most reliable tools for traking hitstun at the moment, because that's exactly how the combo meter works. It checks to see if the opponent is still in hitstun when you try to hit them again, and if they are then it registers it as a combo. If not, the meter is reset. That means that they technically had at least 1 frame that they could've done something in (which for Marth, Samus, and Bowser they could've up B'd because they are invincible for the first couple of frames). The hitstun is so bad that they may even be able to hit you back for doing your job and attacking them.

Brawl will be much more dependant on individual hits, but I just hope that doesn't make it a turtling and camping game like it lends itself to be. The reality is that combos were a good thing that's been taken out, and now we have to try to make up for it. It is a flaw in brawl, and trying to cover it up will not change this fact.

But even though Brawl is a pretty suckish game for the sake of good competition,
I'm still gonna play it and have a heck of a time~

As am I. And I really hope that I'm wrong and we find someway to overcome this. I really do want brawl to fourish competatively. Smash has always seemed to tred a fine line between being stictly competative and strictly casual. I just hope Sakurai didn't make a mistake by changing so many fighting elements at the same time.

 

[marthmaster04]

The combo is one of the most reliable tools for traking hitstun at the moment, because that's exactly how the combo meter works. It checks to see if the opponent is still in hitstun when you try to hit them again, and if they are then it registers it as a combo. If not, the meter is reset. That means that they technically had at least 1 frame that they could've done something in (which for Marth, Samus, and Bowser they could've up B'd because they are invincible for the first couple of frames). The hitstun is so bad that they may even be able to hit you back for doing your job and attacking them.

Brawl will be much more dependant on individual hits, but I just hope that doesn't make it a turtling and camping game like it lends itself to be. The reality is that combos were a good thing that's been taken out, and now we have to try to make up for it. It is a flaw in brawl, and trying to cover it up will not change this fact.

Lol bud i know about hitstun, I still play ssb64 competitively. And even in 64, with all that hitstun, the combo meter is STILL inaccurate. Yes its sometimes a good tool for measuring blah blah blah, But theres still inescapeable moves that are NOT registered on the METER. Read someones post fully before you comment back.

 

[Takuyo90]

well lets just wait about a year and well see how we do i mean come on, we didnt get good at melee after 2 days when it came out. lets just wait and find new thing and new techs..

 

[Yuna]

I guess that's true, but Brawl isn't exactly conventional...I dunno, I expect Fighting games to be a game in which constantly reacting and staying on your toes is the point of the game...
If I hit my friends once and then they can't do anything to escape the combo I've now put them in, my analytical mind wonders, "why have the combo in the first place?"
The thing is, a combo is just x amount of damage that you give in an inescapable string: it could very well just be an attack powered so that it deals that much damage in the first place, since most of the punishment is caused by that first hit...Well, that's just my two cents
Although the "reward" you mentioned for the attacked player isn't exactly true, if you don't pursue your opponent, they probably can't hit you back any easier than you hit them...
They were hit into the air, but they still have the same options given to you...they can airdodge or attack, but you can too...So yes, there are no more "combos" but it's by no means flipping it over so that the attacked person is at a pure advantage~
most attacks appear to have enough knockback to send the opponent away before the lag, but...
if an attack has THAT punishable lag without having the knockback to follow it up, it would likely be better to use it later on, when they have extra damage...

I'm so sick and tired of this "Brawl isn't conventional"-excuse. Brawl is still a fighting game. And in fighting game lingo, a combo is inescapable. If it's escapable (especially if it's really easy to do so), then it's not a combo.

A combo is not X amount of damage. It's x amount of moves (that just happen to inflict damage). The attacked person is not an advantage. No one claimed they were. It's just that you'll be lucky if you can string together more than 2-3 moves.

It's not about having a lot of cooldown lag. It's that there's almost no hitstun. Even most moves that are fast and have little lag won't allow you to combo!

Although yes, I agree, punishment is lacking in Brawl: this is probably to appeal to the casual players and to shorten the gap: at most any given moment, all players are at an equal advantage of hitting each other, so casuals don't get destroyed and comboed "eternally" by the competitive...But for a purely competitive game, Brawl isn't exactly the most optimal...

At any given moment, all players were equal at an advantage (if they played the game character) in Melee too. A Casual player (vs. a good Competitive one) will still not know the ultimate ways of comboing, approach, etc. The gap will still be there. They'll still get mindgamed and lose.

And we do not care about the Casual level when talking about Competitive Smash. Because why should we? Casual players play the game their own way. We play ours in our way.

I don't in any way think that Melee was very strict for combos considering other fighters, but I personally didn't like the way combos were so hard to escape because I never really saw Melee as a traditional fighter: it seems like it should be rather lenient...
I think this because whenever My friends get hit around, I just sort of do a few easy hits, but they can't react, no matter what they do: it just seems like their options are a bit too limited, but...

Combos weren't that hard to escape in Melee. What characters are you playing, what characters are they playing and what are these magic combos?

I see what you're getting at there, as they need to have some options, but not too many...Otherwise, there's basically no difference between idle and being hit, since really, you're in the same situation for both. You've really got me there, it was a very good system~
I just have some moments where I guess it seems almost unfair how long the stun is...(I'm looking at you, chain throwers <_<) But otherwise, Melee definitely was a pretty drastic, yet effective system for competitive play~

It was never the hitstun that mattered when it came to chaingrabs since most throws have around the same hitstun (rising exponentially with damage). It was the fact that certain throws have almost no knockback even at mid- to highish percentages, allowing chaingrabs.

Anyways, That's very true, but Melee's been brought to the point that everything is now predictable with only the most construed plans becoming anything out of the ordinary...
I know that everything in Melee was strategic, heck, almost everything in any game can be strategic to a degree...

Yes, and? So will Brawl. What's your point?

What I meant was that people, once they connect a good hit, no longer have to factor reaction time much, since they have so limited options...But as you said before, limited options are pretty necessary...

There's plenty to factor in. Opponent DI and you also have to react fast enough to the hit connecting as waiting too long might allow them to wiggle out of it into an airdodge or jump.

But because they couldn't counter attack, and all they could do was screw you up, it meant that every hit you make, you ALWAYS should pursue...Sure, it doesn't mean it'll always work, but I know that if I hit somebody into the air, I MUST follow if I want to make the best of it...
I like adding consideration on to the minds of the players, I guess..
I like how in Brawl, you think, "Should I really follow this guy?" It adds another layer of thought process...sure, it's probably in the way of the competitive play, but I guess I'm not a competitively experienced person D:

I'm sorry, did you just say that it adds depth to the game that you no longer can combo people?

The biggest gripe I have with Chess and Smash compared together, I guess, is that in Chess, your mistakes are allowed to be super-punishable, because you are given time to consider what your options are, so your risks will increase accordingly...
Smash is a split-second misjudgment and you're stuck until you're careening off screen with 50% extra damage D:
I dunno, but it just doesn't seem like the advantage should be that wide...
I still stand at the mid-ground: from my (limited) competitive view, Brawl has become a bit too lenient, but...
I still prefer it over Melee's...sorry...

One minor mistake does not lead to certain death if you're good. It requires many mistakes per stock.

What I mean to say is that...
Not that it's not punishable, by what I mean sterile, but that...
there isn't any unpredictability DURING and ONLY DURING your turn:
I don't have to think about you suddenly moving your piece while I'm considering my options...

What is this belief that everything is predictable in Melee and that it won't be in Brawl? There will almost always be a "best way" to do something. And people will use it if they can.

Because of this, they become more "predictable". Brawl will be the same.

But yes, on second thought/considering your comments, I see how a player's performance can never judge your skills in either of those games...
An epic win in Chess still relies on your opponent's skill as well~
likewise, a good "combo" (don't exist in Brawl D will be affected by whether or not your opponent remembers to use the all-powerful air-dodge <_<

Why did you write such a long and meaningless post talking about nothing?

...yes.
Yes.
I agree now...
Apparently, I have absolutely no insight on what a competitive game should be like...D:

Then why are you still arguing?

By being so forgiving, this game has been reduced to prefer turtling...
Which is true...This basically overthrows my argument. Nice post~

What was wrong with all of my posts saying the same thing?

...What was my argument? wasn't this thread about the concept of whether a person who couldn't combo 3-4 hits has a problem or not?
Well, I might be using the topic of this thread as a shield...trying to divert the subject so I don't have to answer that response...

Nice strategy.

And Ankoku, you are very right...Chess=/= Smash, and it really shouldn't...
<_<
But they have similarities, which makes it a nice comparison~
But perhaps...we take it too far.

And what about the many times I said that Chess =/= Smash? Really, it's nice how you can ignore some posts because you don't have any counter-arguments to them.

In conclusion (wtf? Is this how I end this post?)
Sonic_Wave,
I am by no means a competitive gamer, or competitive anything...
I know nothing about what makes a good competitive game...
Perhaps I have no experience? Perhaps I am too easily swayed by your argument? Perhaps I'm insecure about my own?
Regardless, you have helped shed some light on this topic, and I thank you for it~

Next time, say it without repeating yourself 10 times using different wordings and going off-topic so much.

 

[Yuna]

well lets just wait about a year and well see how we do i mean come on, we didnt get good at melee after 2 days when it came out. lets just wait and find new thing and new techs..

The community was new back then. A lot of new things were also introduced with Melee. Brawl? Not so much.

People also weren't actively looking for techs and hidden strats as much as they are now. This was also 7 years ago. The gamebase was much smaller.

And most importantly: Stop using this inane argument!

 

[Dark Sonic]

Yuna, that may have been a little unneccesary. The conflict had already been resolved further down the post and he probably just forgot to edit the rest of it out. He probably also ignored you because of the somewhat harsh manner you presented it in. You did have excelent points, many of which I reiterrated in my posts. If more people read your posts instead of disregarding their content because of their tone, arguements would end a lot sooner, but the fact is that people get very defensive if they feel they've been insulted in any way.

Go easy on the guy. He's admitted that he doesn't have that much overall competative experience, and he was willing to listen to my debate and even allowed his own opinion to be swayed instead of creating a mental barrier for himself.

 

[AeryEcho]

It's okay, it's all good~
You two (Yuna and Sonic_Wave) have very strong opinions, and I respect/admire that~

Back on topic...:
I still stand by the fact that people should not say others have "problems" if they can't do a 3-4 hit combo.

Even though true "combos" don't exist =P

 

[Yuna]

It's okay, it's all good~
You two (Yuna and Sonic_Wave) have very strong opinions, and I respect/admire that~

Back on topic...:
I still stand by the fact that people should say others have "problems" if they can't do a 3-4 hit combo.

Even though true "combos" don't exist =P

I lol at all the drama this thread has created XD

I was going to take Sonic Wave's advice 'til this post:
And this is where you're still wrong. For reasons already stated several times.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Yeah, AeryEcho did you really mean to say that? That's insulting both the player who was trying to do the combo, and the player who got out of it.

The attacker is insulted because you're saying he's unskilled, even though it's not his fault that the opponent escaped.
The defender is insulted because you disregarded his ability to break out of the combo and pinned his good fortune on the attacker.

Not the smartest statement dude.

 

[Giga Hand]

This isn't an argument of whether you can combo in Brawl or not. This is an argument of the DEFINITION of a combo.

Y'know, if this post does what I think it'll do, it'll have ended my third argument... Just saying.

 

[Kirby M.D.]

Back on topic...:
I still stand by the fact that people should say others have "problems" if they can't do a 3-4 hit combo.

Choose your words carefully man, that's not a smart thing to say. Show that you learned something over the past page.

I lol at all the drama this thread has created XD

Me too, but that's no reason to start more.

 

[mugwhump]

Yuna, that may have been a little unneccesary. The conflict had already been resolved further down the post and he probably just forgot to edit the rest of it out. He probably also ignored you because of the somewhat harsh manner you presented it in. You did have excelent points, many of which I reiterrated in my posts. If more people read your posts instead of disregarding their content because of their tone, arguements would end a lot sooner, but the fact is that people get very defensive if they feel they've been insulted in any way.

Go easy on the guy. He's admitted that he doesn't have that much overall competative experience, and he was willing to listen to my debate and even allowed his own opinion to be swayed instead of creating a mental barrier for himself.

Yuna was comboing him for making mistakes

 

[AeryEcho]

O_o
Oh crap, I forgot the "shouldn't" and mistyped "should"! Bad typo!
Sorry everybody! I'll fix that right away! D:

I'm such an idiot lately...

Well, anyways, I got to play Brawl, and I see first hand what you meant there, Sonic_Wave,
It is a bit over forgiving, and people don't have any reason to do anything other than turtling...
although with enough people playing it, mindsets will grow to it...People might start attacking aggressively to throw the other person off, but fakes it at the last second...only they also fake that since everybody already expects that...
some sort of competitive style of gaming will arise, so that's something I won't worry about...

...I'm going to stop posting before I make everybody else hate me.

Very sorry for wasting your time, everyone...

 

[full_95]

there are some very confused people playing this game. comboing sucks in brawl, end of story. there is no argument. if you find a video of a 0-death combo please direct me to it, if not, shut up about your alleged combos.

sorry for the late entry, but i just came across the thread and im really frustrated with brawl.

 

[Vincent Vega]

3 hit combos huh? Lol Brawl destroyed this site... Oh well, luckily there is a replacement. ^_^

Edit: I lol'd at the counting of the hits, not the fact that it's 3. Just to clarify for the guy below me.

 

[DarkKnight077]

All that post said to me. "I'm a Melee scrub".

 

[Sai Winner of Games]

Guys, this is Brawl, we don't need to discuss like this anymore since we have online. LavisFiend find me on one of the IRC channels, and show me these "combos".

 

[Taymond]

If anyone still doesn't see the difference, the problem competitive melee players, and competitive fighting game players in general, are having with brawl, is that it's almost completely, 100% biased towards the defending player.

If I run out and hit you, in brawl, there's a good chance that you will be able to react after the hit before I will. This means you will be able to hit me back, almost certainly, if you know what you're doing. It's safer for me to wait for you to come to me, then, since I can at least hope to block your attack, then hit you, which is clearly better than a tradeoff of hits.

If the game is so biased towards the defending player like this, there's no incentive to attack. Turtling is the best strategy. Where has the action gone, then? Why do anything? I can win a match just by sitting in one place, letting you come at me over and over and over until you've got 600 damage, then kill you. How is that fun for you? How is that fun for me? That's what I'd call shallow, not comboing in melee.

The defender needs to have the incentive to become the attacker in order for a fighting game to produce.. fighting. The amount of hitstun in melee allowed you to get several moves in before the defender could break free. If they let themselves get hit, they suffered. In brawl, if they let themselves get hit, the attacker suffers just as much as the defender. Why the hell would anyone attack, then?

Where's the action? A fighting game needs to have action.


Another result of all this that bothers some is that there's no longer a sufficient return for investing time into the game. You can't keep getting steadily better. Combos are not handed to you in melee. You have to know what you're doing. You have to work to be able to perform true combos, that give your opponent sufficient punishment for mistakes. If you keep playing, keep trying, you'll get better and you'll be able to see significantly better performance from yourself over time.

Without an ability to perform effective, punishing combos, without incentive to do so, how can you improve? What's to learn? What's to gain?

 

[Squadallah]

1) Quit acting a condescending douche-bag
2) You're either playing against computers or
3) You're playing against friends that aren't aware of DI, jumping
4) You don't know what a true combo is

 

[sonofashrub]

Just a question... Does it make any difference? These 'natural strings' can be ridiculously hard to escape if you're good at them. They act in the same way 'true' combos do, so why get caught up in definitions?

it has nothing to do with how good these "combos" are, it's the fact that we are apparently only able to use the "combos" nintendo put into the game and not the freeform ones players put together in Melee, which lowers the amount of things you can do and makes the game much less interesting.

 

[Emblem Lord]

Taymond wins.

FLAWLESS VICTORY!!!!

 

[Kumori]

I think people are saying "Smash is like Chess because you have to think a lot". You could say the same thing about Smash and Pure Mathematics.

If you do compare the two, you can see some similar elements, pawn structures and distancing. If you look at it, the two are not comparable, in fact chess isn't comparable to anything, well possible Go, but that is still stretching it.

In summary: Strategy doesn't mean it's like chess.

 

[HouseofGlass]

I have a feeling my first post will end in tragedy, but I might as well give it I shot anyway. I have two problems with what you said, Taymond.

The first problem is probably going to be the sticking point, since it hinges on my knowledge of the game and I am certainly no expert, but I figure if we're all relatively new to SSBB I think I can get away with it. You, and a number of other people, have talked about how attacking is more dangerous for the attacker than for the defender because the defender can attack back immediately afterwards, and I don't really understand how this is true. Most attacks knock people away, and those that don't are usually fast and lagless enough, like jabs, that you're not going to be in a nasty position afterwards. So it's not really like, say, DK punches Mario and then suddenly WHAM! Mario scores a direct hit on DK, sending him flying.

What low hitstun DOES seem to do is make followup attacks less likely/unlikely to be automatic, thus no combos as people have said. That might be its own problem depending on how important you think combos are to a fighting game, but I genuinely don't understand how you can say that a defender can punish the attacker just for attacking, assuming the attack is neither whiffed nor blocked. I mean, to follow that to its logical conclusion, both attackers would be smacking each other back and forth endlessly like Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots because the attacker is automatically going to be attacked by the defender, who has become the attacker, who will be attacked by the defender, etc.

If this is due to my ignorance then could you please link a youtube or something showing what you mean? I've watched a few videos, but they're mostly just matches with my favorite characters, and while I've definitely seen the difficulty of comboing I haven't really seen what you've been talking about.

The second I am much more confident in asserting: you are essentially claiming that there is no way to increase your skill because there are no combos, and I can't imagine that's true, because there are many things more that go into a fighting game than just combos. Spacing, mindgames, knowledge of the best move to use in any situation due to priority/speed/knockback, etc. Your argument would essentially lead to the conclusion "If any two players fought, the odds would be exactly 50/50 in favor of either winning," which you know is not true. Good players play more skillfully than weaker players, and there is always the ability to practice and gain more skill. You can no longer learn combos but that doesn't come close to meaning you can't improve your ability to play the game.

 

[Yuna]

The first problem is probably going to be the sticking point, since it hinges on my knowledge of the game and I am certainly no expert, but I figure if we're all relatively new to SSBB I think I can get away with it. You, and a number of other people, have talked about how attacking is more dangerous for the attacker than for the defender because the defender can attack back immediately afterwards, and I don't really understand how this is true. Most attacks knock people away, and those that don't are usually fast and lagless enough, like jabs, that you're not going to be in a nasty position afterwards. So it's not really like, say, DK punches Mario and then suddenly WHAM! Mario scores a direct hit on DK, sending him flying.

It's called shielding. You shield, then you drop the shield and then you hit them back. The new shield mechanics has almost no shieldstun. Most of the time, you'll recover from the attack even before the opponent (who did the attack). Powershielding is also much easier now (the frame window has been expanded greatly). So if they do any attack that's slow-ish or you just anticipate their attack, you can Powershield it and then punish accordingly.

Aerials also cannot be canceled anymore outside of the Auto-Cancel on some aerials. Because of this, if you block an aerial that's not super-super fast, you can shieldgrab or shieldhop an aerial of your own. It's much easier if you powershield the aerial/attack.

Approach has become very risky and difficult. And most of it is unsafe. You're limited to fast poky attacks that have a lot of range and priority and then afterwards, you can't continue the pressure because if you stand too close, you'll get shieldgrabbed (grabs even have Super Armor now).

What low hitstun DOES seem to do is make followup attacks less likely/unlikely to be automatic, thus no combos as people have said. That might be its own problem depending on how important you think combos are to a fighting game, but I genuinely don't understand how you can say that a defender can punish the attacker just for attacking, assuming the attack is neither whiffed nor blocked. I mean, to follow that to its logical conclusion, both attackers would be smacking each other back and forth endlessly like Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots because the attacker is automatically going to be attacked by the defender, who has become the attacker, who will be attacked by the defender, etc.

No one said they can punish you just for attacking. And if they did, then they probably meant on shield. And trust me, trading blows is much easier now. If you do an attack with little knockback (or they just don't fly anywhere because they had 0% when you did the attack), most of the time, they'll recover fast enough to Nair you in turn.

The second I am much more confident in asserting: you are essentially claiming that there is no way to increase your skill because there are no combos, and I can't imagine that's true, because there are many things more that go into a fighting game than just combos. Spacing, mindgames, knowledge of the best move to use in any situation due to priority/speed/knockback, etc. Your argument would essentially lead to the conclusion "If any two players fought, the odds would be exactly 50/50 in favor of either winning," which you know is not true. Good players play more skillfully than weaker players, and there is always the ability to practice and gain more skill. You can no longer learn combos but that doesn't come close to meaning you can't improve your ability to play the game.

No one's claiming there's no way to increase your skill simply because of the lack of comboing. It's everything altogether that builds for a less deep fighting game. All that is Brawl.

 

[Zodiac]

I cant do super long combos Like I used to because of the floatiness but I can still combo people pretty darn well.

 

[Yuna]

I cant do super long combos Like I used to because of the floatiness but I can still combo people pretty darn well.

Who are your opponents?

 

[Deleted member]

yuna i can bet you know his oponents are T_T

 

[Inferno96]

Alright, I don't normally post here and haven't in years...I played Melee near the beginning and held a few records for cruel melee on calfoolios website. Anyway, I am actually a seasoned chess player who has won many tournaments --and will tell you that fighting games are nothing like chess. Chess is actually mainly about pattern-recognition and doing things which are clever in the long run. You can't plan super-far ahead, or have a singular goal that you slowly ploading forward towards in fighting games, in fighting games it's more about the spur-of-the-moment strategy, and making them mess up in the short run.

Just for example, many people would consider an RTS like starcraft to require a lot of strategy, and I would agree with them. They might then compare starcraft to chess. But the skills do not translate--I am absolutely terrible at RTSes yet I do great in chess games. That's just an example of two things which seem like they'd have a lot in common but don't really in actuality. This is because certain skills, such as multitasking, are very important in RTSes but not in chess. In Smash Brothers, spur-of-the-moment decisions and reactions are very important, and they are not in chess.

Did you know scientific studies have shown that peoples chess ability has been shown to be slightly inversely proportional to their spatial skills? Studies show that people who can recognize patterns are generally better at chess.

Just thought that was kind of unintuitive =)

 

[Yuna]

Inferno96: I play go. I'm not that good (5 kyu), but I know enough to know that all of what you said was true. I think I'm gonna bookmark your post and repost it everytime someone uses the "Chess-argument".

 

[Yuna]

To those who claim comboing is still possible (at least more than 2-3 hits at the most):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDgUo_9W724

Both somewhere at the start and at the end of the video, Wizenhimer does funny things while being comboed. Twice, he Up Bs while being F-tilt spammed by Sheik (that is, he got hit and Ryoko kept F-tilting... once he had 0%-ish and once he had 50%-ish (should have more stun, but nooo). At the beginning, he manages to fair Sheik after she dash attacked him. The other times, he just airdodged. Yeah, comboing my tuchas.

 

[Taymond]

To HouseofGlass

I'll just point out a couple of occasions in the video Yuna posted above to orchestrate what we're talking about here.

Around 3:05 -- Shiek does a Ftilt and knocks Marth into the air. Now, shiek is a fast character. She can perform moves in quick succession, so it's feasible that if she reacts quick enough, follows up quick enough, Shiek ought to be able to land another attack before Marth can react, because although Marth is ALSO a fast character, since this is a fighting game, the attacker should be advantaged. But do you see what happens? Shiek, who is quite fast, cannot combo off this very good setup. Marth, the player who was attacked, is able to act first and does an up-B, which activates incredibly quickly. Marth chose the right move here, yes. Had he chosen something else, Shiek may've been able to be faster. But the defending player was able to react BEFORE the attacking player. Shiek takes the initiative, she attacks, connects, and is punished for it.

The opposite case is illustrated shortly after around 3:28. Marth moves in to attack Zelda. Zelda shields, and before Marth can recover from his attack, she is able to counter attack.

These two singular events, while isolated, illustrate quite well the general problem. The defender is favored in the majority of confrontations. Why on earth should Marth, the one who LET himself get hit, be able to recover from an attack before Shiek, who SUCCEEDED in landing a hit? You succeed, and hit, but since you're the attacker, you also fail, because Marth can react before you after the hit. As the defender, you fail, and allow yourself to get hit, but you suffer no punishment. Since you can react faster, you do so, and exchange hits. You're not disadvantaged in any way, you both just have higher percents.

If you allow yourself to get hit, you should be disadvantaged temporarily. You should have a higher percent than your opponent now, until you go on the offensive and even things up again.

This is the case NOT just for fast characters like Marth, but for everyone. The defending character does not suffer from being hit. There should be enough hitstun for the attacker to followup an attack, or successfully retreat without taking damage, or else... why attack? You gain NOTHING by attacking in this situation. And this situation is widespread. Defense is the best strategy without question, and the game doesn't advance.

I probably ought to point out a couple other examples, but honestly, i have other things that I've been putting off that need attention. I hope this example has illustrated to you, at least, what we're talking about. This sort of encounter shouldn't be the norm in a fighting game.

 

[Foxy_Marth]

Comboing is definitely harder in this game anf air dodging consecutively makes it loads harder. I can combo decently though.

 

[HouseofGlass]

Thanks, Yuna and Taymond. You both refuted my first argument very well, gave good examples, and were even good enough to be polite despite the fact that it was mostly my fault for misinterpreting Taymond's point. I can't really think of any way to respond except in agreement. That could be due to my lack of experience or ability, but unless I see any strong argument to the contrary I'll just assume it was because you were right. As for my second, I still somewhat disagree, but considering that a skill division is possible in even the worst game, it seems pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Taymond]

Oh yeah, I never really addressed your other point, sorry. It's just a little harmless hyperbole on my part. Things aren't really that dire a situation, but there does, right now at least, seem to be considerably less reward for playing hard and working to improve. In melee, you could very clearly watch yourself improve. There was something to strive towards and attain. While there are obviously still levels of skill in brawl, they're less rewarding to your hard work. I work my *** off, get to be considerably good, and some half-decent player can still beat me if he plays as lame as he wants?

The gap is just smaller now, which.. while good for drawing new players and giving them a chance, makes the game have less to work for, less to strive towards. It makes it less rewarding to be a good player.

 

[RazeveX]

to OP:

heres the thing:

NO ONE is complaining about not being able to combo BY YOUR DEFINITION. but you thought they were. YOU ARE WRONG.

the thing is, you really just arent nice. Even if you were right (which you are far from), did you think you might be offending people? I mean, some people very new to the game might be upset knowing they can't do the things you are talking about.

It's like M2K making a thread about melee saying "Yeah i can beat Ken what about you? yeah theres something wrong with you. You suck."

But don't worry too much about that, since you were completely wrong in the first place and failed to defend your point with ignorance.

 

[Vortok]

One thing I'll say about that example, regarding Marth doing his Up-B out of f-tilts.

According to results Mew2King has posted in the Marth forum, Marth has invincibility frames on frames 1-5 (and possibly 6, M2K wasn't certain) on his Up B, which may partically be contributing to this specific situation.

Link to M2K's post -> http://smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=143923
Stuff about invincible frames is near the bottom. I'd say M2K is a respectable source for that type of info, lol.

He also said in that post that a lvl 9 computer Marth up B'd out of his (M2K's) forward b downward slashes (the fourth hit). I'm not gonna bother trying to argue whether comboing is gone or not, but it certainly shows another way that Marth is still a beast, lol.