• 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!

Stage boundary adjustments

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
This is the most important and significant mechanics change we can feasibly make at this point. It is extremely positive in regards to increasing the pace of matches. This is good for tournaments, makes the game more exciting to watch, and it actually works out really well for balancing specific characters.

Lowering KO% across stages other than Warioware is the best thing we can do for B+ balance-wise and just... fun-wise. Its the last thing really preventing B+ from staying fast-paced throughout a whole match. Patient, defensive players with good DI will survive to ludicrous % if they play safely enough to avoid death combos and don't get edgeguarded (and some characters are near impossible to edgeguard effectively for the majority of the cast) the range in which you can land KO moves (unless you're Ganon or Bowser, )... or really I don't think we should lower the % much, but survivability is ridiculous as is.

A huge benefit of this is allowing me to indirectly tone-down Lucario, without actually nerfing him in any way. The game wouldn't devolve into campfests high% last stock cause nobody had killing true combos off anything at that %... it is a final adjustment to risk vs. reward.

tl;dr?: needs to happen.

Discuss.

Wondering if anybody would agree with me on this one:

A near global reduction of stage boundaries.

The biggest complaint I have gotten from people I've gotten to play B+ is that its still feeling slow, and the biggest reason they give to that is how characters still live to vBrawl percents. My DDD regularly hits around 200% before he finally dies, even my G&W can push towards 150 or 160 which is just wrong considering he has no bucket braking. Few characters have early finishers that they can actually land on a competent opponent. Seems like unless your going up against somebody like Falcon, Jiggly or Wario that you're going to live for a long time.

I was playing on AMKalmar's YI:M and the tight boundaries there had me dying around 110-120, and it was a beautiful thing to have stocks go that quickly for a change. Take a stage like FD where even mid weight characters can push their life to like 180 and reduce that towards 150. I personally think the game would benefit a lot from reducing how long people live, and the complaints I hear agree with that statement.

If the old boundary adjustments are going to be taken out, I think it would do wonders for the game to have other stages looked at as well. Seems like the least intrusive way to inject a big speed boost into the game.
I agree.

10agreements
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I agree with Plum. The only boundary increase that should be kept in is the one for Wario Ware. The rest should be removed for sure. Maybe bring in the boundaries on some of the stages (WiFi)
Corneria isn't a competitive stage. I don't know why we'd tweak stages that will be banned regardless.

The boundary increases can certainly go, except Warioware (as has already been stated).
nobody takes corneria seriously anyways...if we want to be serious about it, we should use something like this somewhere down rhe line:

and we can just throw in a size increase to the ww pac along with jumpable walls and call it a day...give me some numbers (x% increase, y units increase, w/e) and i can whip something up real quick
Death Boundary Modifier as it currently is in Brawl+ (unless any of you "pulled a fast one" since GSH2):

065A9000 00000020
1CF0F330 CD000000 WarioWare
2DF0F1A0 E6000000 Green Greens
30F0F030 FD000000 Corneria
37F00000 000D0000 Online Practice

So let's see...Corneria is banned, Online Practice is considered un-salvageable AND the border modifications in the end only added to the suckage. IDK about Green Greens, and honestly we should adopt the fixed WarioWare .pac that allowed wall jumps on the lower portion of the stage (and apply the boundaries in the .pac).

For the curious, here are B+ WarioWare's current boundaries (according to the code):

Left Boundary: F33 (3891)
Right Boundary: 0CD (205)

Rest assured this makes sense! Not really...

if we assume that each block added by the code = 20, then it would make sense I guess.

3891/20 = 194.55 added to original left boundary
205/20 = 10.25 added to original right boundary

...yeah, still doesn't seem to add up huh?

so...it seems to actually affect a lot less stages than we thought...maybe we should decrease the death boundaries anyway? Let's be honest here, people still die way too late even if the DBM isn't the culprit. It's pretty obvious that hitstun is partly to blame, but we're apparently content with that (or at least I am) and so let's shift our focus to the original stages' boundaries.
School time kids!

The way the code works works is it assigns four 3-digit integers. Remember, integers of a given variable size in hex always function like this: the first half of the possible values are positive, the second half are negative, and count from the opposite of the highest positive value back to 0. Hence, for a 3 digit integer, 7FF (2047) is the largest value you can have, 800 (-2047) is the smallest, and FFF = -1. These integers are measured from the center of the screen. What they correspond to I'm not entirely sure, but WW's sides measure positive and negative 205 from the middle. I suppose that it's feasible to assume they're the same units as in PSA, because 20.5 stage builder blocks seems a reasonable comparison.

If Brawlbox can edit these distances directly, I'm all for modding up a bunch of replacement pacs for the stages that need it.
i think its safe to assume they're the same units, WW's death boundaries are

Code:
(-170,180)		(170,180)





(-170,-104)		(170,-104)
by default
Nevermind about the stage boundary adjustments, they only affect warioware and unimportant stages. The difference between KO% for Jiggs and the other light characters isn't really that great, especially with the removal of (most) momentum canceling (which notably helped MK and GW) and improvement in her FF. She's still really light, but not to the extent that altering the stage boundaries slightly will hurt her significantly as a character. It'll be a lot more significant for Lucario and defensive-campy playstyles (which is a good thing).

We should try reducing the boundaries by 5-10% on the boundaries of FD/BF/SV and keep PSII and WW as is.

Yes, the most I would decrease stage boundaries by is ~10% (15% would be pushing it) of their current value. So a move that currently won't kill to 180 will kill at 172, and a move that kills at say... 30 would KO @ ~27.
 

The Cape

Smash Master
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
4,478
Location
Carlisle, PA
While this is a good idea on most stages (we may need to discuss the "meaning" of a stage) we will need to determine which stages and how much. Which should have a higher ceiling and which further walls, etc. Gives more feel to the CPs.

For buffed recoveries in general with the closer sides we could tone down a few of the recovery buffs now.

Lucario upB
Ike sideB
Yoshi sideB
etc

Lucario and Ike sideBs have such a ludacrous speed up that it just makes them insane on stage (Ike sideB is safe on block). Possibly tone down the speed ups as it will still keep their initial intent but not make the recoveries so godly. Yoshi sideB jump refresh (IMO) needs to go entirely, just make it send to freefall.

This would be good changes with the gravity change and the recovery buffs will have less effect with smaller sides ANYWAY.
 

MK26

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
4,450
Location
http://www.mediafire.com/?zj2oddmz0yy for ZSS fix!
just for information purposes:

boundary determining formula for stages with only one flat solid platform

Code:
			      (180)

			      (130)


                           ____________
(-x-150)   (-x-90)    (-x)|	      |(x)    (x+90)   (x+150)
                           \         /
                            \_______/

			      (-50)

			      (-115)
When the middle of the main platform of the stage is centred at (0,0)
x is the furthest point to the right of the stage, rounded to the nearest 10 (ex BF rounds to 80 and FD to 90)
the outermost number in a given direction is the death bound
The second furthest number is the camera bound for a particular direction

and i dont know how the sad face got there, but i dont intend on getting rid of it
 

goodoldganon

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
2,946
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
On the note of Ike side-b that was my doing when that buff came around when I was trying to give Ike a little something more to make him better. Long story short, back in the day their weren't different move IDs for the release of Ike's grounded and aerial side-b and so to make it so you couldn't just jump out, air dodge, and laugh at Ike I went with a higher speed up. Maybe with all of our new fangled tech we can adjust the side-b again and only work with the aerial one.
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
no more character specific change discussion... Lucario especially is not getting altered. When I have the time and inclination I'll write up a lengthy explanation of why we can't do that.

stay on topic plz
 

GuruKid

Smash Ace
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
875
Location
Brooklyn, NY
About the boundaries.

Maybe for the next release, but that's not a small change at all.
Every character is affected, some more then others.
That's besides the fact that people have a faint memorization as to which of their moves kill and where on stage(just based off experience).

For example, this would be a nerf for a character like jigglypuff. She kills at extremly low percents(More like it doesn't matter what percent because it kills so early) and survives at low percents. A stage boundary change would keep her killing ability about the same, yet she'd be surviving a lot less.

An extreme example would be jigglypuff but it would be a complete adjustment that would tamper everyones prior knowledge and potentially need tweaking for certain things for some characters.

It's not a black and white, ratio change that it may seem.

a lot of things are thrown out of balance with a simple change like that.


Just my thoughts on the whole matter.
Bionic: did you try changing ∂W bkb to static bkb?

@Glick
I never claimed or even suggested it was a simple change. The fact of the matter is that character survivability is far too high. Jigglypuff only surviving at low% is a myth and we both know it. The only characters that can consistently be KOed at low% are those most susceptible to gimps or well... people playing against Jigglypuff/Bowser. Also... Lucario... nuff said.

At the very least we have to remove the current stage boundary adjustments.

There's a thread specifically for this though, and it would be a lot easier if this discussion continued there.
Bringing these posts to their relevant thread.

I'm all for a stage boundary decrease, but only a very slight one. Talking like 10%... 15% at most, because I believe what Glick argued will be very true. Decreasing the boundaries too much will throw askew much of the balancing thus far, and going back to square one = bad...
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
Yes, the most I would decrease stage boundaries by is ~10% (15% would be pushing it) of their current value. So a move that currently won't kill to 180 will kill at 172, and a move that kills at say... 30 would KO @ ~27.
 

goodoldganon

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
2,946
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Do we have a stage list so I can look at all the stages we consider are competitive? I can't find the Pound 4 stage list (in class so it's tough to search things). Here is one I found for that tournament in Canada this weekend. I added stuff I thought

Starters


Final Destination - 5% closer sides. 5-10% lower ceiling
Smashville-good
Lylat Cruise-good
Yoshi's Island- 5% lower ceiling and sides
Battlefield-good

Counter Picks:

Delfino Plaza-good
Brinstar-good
Frigate Orpheon-good
Battleship Halberd-good
Castle Siege-good
Rainbow Cruise-good
Pokemon Stadium 1-good
Jungle Japes- ceiling is way too high. I think that goes beyond the 'flavor of the stage'

Why PKMN Stadium 2 isn't in their starter selection is dumbfounding to me but whatever. For that stage I'd lower the ceiling by 5%. I'll try and think about and test more this week. I'll check back on thursday after some solid play time.
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
That list is wrong. First off, it isn't a good stagelist. Second, none of the neutrals are ok except possibly PSII (battlefield certainly isn't). What are you even basing this logic on?

Here are the actual starters for singles:
Final D: omg
Battlefield: adjust!
Smashville: adjust
PSII: probably ok, lowering the ceiling slightly would be good.
Warioware: fine as is

The first thing we've gotta do is determine how effective removing the stage mod codes for these (-WW) will be.
 

shanus

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
6,055
I thought we removed all the boundary changes on this from the code a LONNNNNG time back....


edit: Yep,

Code:
Death boundary data
065A9000 00000020
1CF0F330 CD000000
2DF0F1A0 E6000000
30F0F030 FD000000
37F00000 000D0000
Meaning, the only one worth noting there is Warioware. Also, changes should be done with this code and NOT with pacs if you are only altering boundary data as to keep the set as lightweight as possible. Including 3.5 meg pac files instead of taking the time to do simple arithmetic and write 8 bytes is just silly.
 

VietGeek

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
8,133
we considered warioware as a .pac simply because stage collision data adjustments will probably also be beneficial to the "next" build (being able to walljump on the lower part of the walls).

but yeah i see what you mean.
 

shanus

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
6,055
we considered warioware as a .pac simply because stage collision data adjustments will probably also be beneficial to the "next" build (being able to walljump on the lower part of the walls).

but yeah i see what you mean.
Yeah, warioware and FD collisions are legit (I use them already)
 

MK26

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
4,450
Location
http://www.mediafire.com/?zj2oddmz0yy for ZSS fix!
hmmm...the death boundary code cant be modified to edit camera boundaries, can it?

and also, error on the top part of 'template' there - it's 130 and 180, not 180 and 240
im too trusting...

and i figured out its a loose template, not really a strict equation
 

Glick

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
1,186
Location
Brooklyn, NY
It makes sense on paper, but it still feels very experimental.

I stand by my post, because cape was pointing out things that would need tweeking.
That's exactly the type of thing we would be talking about.
10% doesn't sound like a lot, but that's the different between dying at 70 and dying at 80.


I'm not for this at all. Sorry, that's just my vote.
 

JCaesar

Smash Hero
Joined
May 28, 2004
Messages
9,657
Location
Project MD
NNID
JCaesar
I'm in favor of the boundary tweaks. If it ends up being a nerf to Jiggs, oh well, she's one of the best characters right now, so no big loss there. If anything unforeseen gets too out of whack, we can always fix it with slight KB adjustments. It's a small price to pay to increase the pace of the game.
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
Bringing these posts to their relevant thread.

I'm all for a stage boundary decrease, but only a very slight one. Talking like 10%... 15% at most, because I believe what Glick argued will be very true. Decreasing the boundaries too much will throw askew much of the balancing thus far, and going back to square one = bad...
We could just decrease the boundaries on some, but not all of the stages. I'd like to see PSII stay exactly as it is now personally, as its the most fair stage atm. All the other neutrals should be reduced in size (5-10%). With the counterpicks, well, that's up for discussion as they are CPs, we need to fix a lot of them anyway...
 

leafgreen386

Dirty camper
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
3,577
Location
Playing melee and smash ultimate
Keep in mind that a 5% reduction in the stage boundary will not necessarily equal a 5% reduction in kill percents. Just think about a high base, low growth move, compared to a low base, high growth move. In this example, they both initially kill at the same percent (let's say 100%). If it takes a launch speed of 6000 to kill a certain character, and the threshold is reduced to 5800 (approximately a 3.4% reduction in launch speed), the low base, high growth move will hardly be affected, while the high base, low growth move will greatly have its kill percent impacted. Let's say the high base move had a base of 4000, and we're going to pretend the formula for growth is just simply growth*percent for now, meaning it would have had 20 growth. Let's also say that the low base, high growth move has a base of 500, with a growth of 55. If the target launch speed was changed from 6000 to 5800, the high base, low growth move will end up killing at 90%; the low base, high growth move will end up killing at 96.36%, which would round up to 97%.

As an additional note, the difference in distance sent between 5800 and 6000 launch speed is remarkable, far greater than the difference between something like 500 and 700. Distance sent increases exponentially with the launch power, so a 5% reduction in boundary size may actually make less of a difference than the kinds of differences seen in my example. It may end up making more of a difference. We won't know until we try it out, though.
 

MK26

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 29, 2008
Messages
4,450
Location
http://www.mediafire.com/?zj2oddmz0yy for ZSS fix!
Keep in mind that a 5% reduction in the stage boundary will not necessarily equal a 5% reduction in kill percents. Just think about a high base, low growth move, compared to a low base, high growth move. In this example, they both initially kill at the same percent (let's say 100%). If it takes a launch speed of 6000 to kill a certain character, and the threshold is reduced to 5800 (approximately a 3.4% reduction in launch speed), the low base, high growth move will hardly be affected, while the high base, low growth move will greatly have its kill percent impacted. Let's say the high base move had a base of 4000, and we're going to pretend the formula for growth is just simply growth*percent for now, meaning it would have had 20 growth. Let's also say that the low base, high growth move has a base of 500, with a growth of 55. If the target launch speed was changed from 6000 to 5800, the high base, low growth move will end up killing at 90%; the low base, high growth move will end up killing at 96.36%, which would round up to 97%.

As an additional note, the difference in distance sent between 5800 and 6000 launch speed is remarkable, far greater than the difference between something like 500 and 700. Distance sent increases exponentially with the launch power, so a 5% reduction in boundary size may actually make less of a difference than the kinds of differences seen in my example. It may end up making more of a difference. We won't know until we try it out, though.
qft

i say we just get ourselves a Dreamland and an FoD equivalent, and leave it at that
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
Keep in mind that a 5% reduction in the stage boundary will not necessarily equal a 5% reduction in kill percents.
I am aware of this. Silly Leaf. Nice wall of numbers though, I approve. I know someone wants to find out for me cause I've got class and work all day tomorrow... "puppy dog eyes"
 

Glick

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
1,186
Location
Brooklyn, NY
I'm in favor of the boundary tweaks. If it ends up being a nerf to Jiggs, oh well, she's one of the best characters right now, so no big loss there. If anything unforeseen gets too out of whack, we can always fix it with slight KB adjustments. It's a small price to pay to increase the pace of the game.
Seriously Jceasar? I really regret using jigglypuff as an example.
I just used her because I can relate to her the best. obviously it'd be the same with any character.


I'd like to hear more about what leaf is saying.
 

leafgreen386

Dirty camper
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
3,577
Location
Playing melee and smash ultimate
I unfortunately do not have exact formulas for this stuff, so I can't give any hard numbers without doing some testing first. I do know that there is a constant acceleration in the opposite direction of knockback which acts independent of gravity. I have obtained a rough estimate of what this value is using launch speed in a zero grav environment, although I was never able to verify its accuracy. More testing must be done for it to be useful to us.

For anyone who wants to see, feel free to read over it. This is what I posted in the smash lab some time ago (tl;dr at bottom):
While answering what was originally a very simple question, I ended up finishing my exploration of how the game calculates knockback. There's some extraneous stuff in the post, but here's a copy of it. Note that although the acceleration is probably the same for all characters, this has only been tested for jiggs.

---


Isn't hitstun over once your character reaches equilibrium from the launch?
Since no one answered this yet... I will.

The short answer is "no." The long answer is that hitstun and knockback are calculated differently, even though they are both calculated in respect to launch speed. Hitstun is a linear function in respect to launch speed while knockback is an exponential function in respect to launch speed. Well... not quite. In reality, when each is solved for time (in frames), they're both linear functions, but they're not equal.

The really long answer goes something like this:

h = s*(m*l / d)

In this equation, h is hitstun in frames (so it's already solved for time), m is the universal hitstun constant (the value we modify with the hitstun code; the vbrawl default is .4), l is the launch speed of the move, and d is a character specific division constant, which ranges between 32 and 36, where characters that have higher fall speed accelerations have a higher division constant (and therefore suffer less hitstun). The variable s is usually equal to 1.0, however, if the move being used is a spike that launches a grounded opponent, it equals 1.25, since spikes that launch foes off of the ground have 80% of their normal launch speed, but calculate hitstun using the normal launch speed of the move. The very existence of the s value means that it's impossible for hitstun to always equal knockback, but I'll keep going.

v = a*f + l ; v>=0

This equation and the next will look very familiar to you if you've taken physics. This equation calculates the instantaneous velocity, v, of a character on a particular frame, f, where l is once again launch speed and a is some negative constant which represents the rate at which a character slows down from the hit (their acceleration). Note that this is in a zero gravity environment, and if I were to include gravity in this calculation, it would be far more complicated. The restriction saying that v is greater than or equal to zero is just common sense. You don't suddenly start moving backwards once your launch speed wears off; your motion simply stops.

At this point, it's possible to solve the system for time. At v = 0, knockback is over, so solving for f, you get f = l/a. This alone won't prove anything, since we still don't know what a is, nor if it varies among different characters, as hitstun's d value does.

x = 0.5a*(f^2) + l*f ; f<= l/a

This equation represents the total distance you travel due to knockback, x, where f, a, and l are the same values they were in the previous equation. Some people will probably yell at me for not including an x0 value (the initial displacement from a reference point, such as the center of the stage), so feel free to add it if it makes you feel better. The restriction placed of f is less than or equal to l divided by a is because of what I just stated above: knockback is over once v = 0. You don't suddenly reverse directions; you just stop. Conveniently, this also means you can substitute f for -l/a in the equation, and obtain a much simplified version allowing you to find the total displacement at the final frame of kb.

x = 0.5a*(-l/a)^2 + l *(-l/a)
x = 0.5*(l^2)/a + (-l^2)/a
x = (l^2)/2a + 2*(-l^2)/2a

x = -(l^2)/2a

That still leaves the question, though... what is a? Well, not only that, but is "l" really what's being squared in the formula? As it turns out, what is actually being squared is the value l/1000. That is the real launch speed that the game uses to calculate knockback. It uses the launch speed we see at the end of the game screen to calculate hitstun, however. You see, I had calculated a stage builder block to be 20,000 units tall using launch speed and the number of frames of knockback. The actual ingame unit is... 20, as provided to us by spunit.

My original calculation:

v^2 = 2ax + l^2

Another equation that probably looks familiar to anyone who's taken physics, only with v0 being called l. Since we're using v = 0, and we already know that a = -l/f when v = 0 by the initial velocity equation, you can substitute a and solve for x.

0 = 2(-l/f)x + l^2
x = (l^2)*(f/l)/2


x = l*f/2

At this point we need some data. A luigi using upB on a 0% jiggs will produce a launch speed of 4000, knockback will complete in 68 frames, and jiggs travels almost exactly 6.8 blocks high on a tower of stage builder blocks, which are each of a height, b. Plugging in...

x = (4000)*(68)/2
x = 136,000

6.8b = x
6.8b = 136,000

b = 20,000

Except... we know from spunit that b = 20, not 20,000. Since obviously the frame count isn't off by a thousand fold, it must therefore be the launch speed that the game is dividing by 1000. Correcting the calculation:

x = (l/1000)*f/2
136 = ((4000)/1000)*(68)/2

Now that we know x and know that l in the knockback equation is actually l/1000, let's try solving for a... finally.

x = (-(l/1000)^2)/2a
a = (-(l/1000)^2)/(2*x)
a = (-((4000)/1000)^2)/(2*(136))
a = (-(4)^2)/(272)

a = -.0588 or a = -1/17

Which would make the following equations true:

v = -17*f + (l/1000)
f = 17*(l/1000) (when v = 0)
l = 1000*f/17 (when v = 0)
x = -(17/2)*(f^2) + l*f
x = ((l/1000)^2)/38

At the least, this is true for jigglypuff. I have yet to verify that every character has the same acceleration during knockback, although I don't see why they wouldn't. "Weight" is already factored into the launch speed formula, so it wouldn't make sense to account for launch resistance twice.

And to finally answer the question at the top of this post...

f = 17*(l/1000)
f = 17*((4000)/1000)
f = 68

h = s*(m*l / d)
h = (1)*((0.4)*(4000) / (32))
h = 50

The number of frames of knockback and the number of frames of hitstun are not equal given the same launch speed. If you wanted hitstun to equal knockback, you would need to set m to .544. Again, though, note that this doesn't consider gravity in the equation, so typically, characters will begin falling before hitstun wears off.
Yes, it's very long, and you can probably skip over most of it. Also disregard the incorrect hitstun stuff. Obviously this was done some time ago.

tl;dr: This seems to point to (launch speed/1000) being the true initial velocity of a character when launched. Acceleration during knockback appears to be -.0588, or -1/17. This value is probably not exact, and further testing may prove it to be entirely incorrect; it was calculated using a single case and has not been verified against any others.

edit: I'll do some calculations using psa gravs later to verify this. I'm on my laptop atm, so... yeah.
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
tl;dr of what leaf has said: Changing stage boundaries will affect KO% differently based on the ratio of bkb to kbg in a move. Also, the % a stage boundary is reduced by ≠ a universal corresponding decrease in KO%.


This is why we need to actually try out boundary modifications to determine the right amount to reduce them by. Also, though you already stated that the hitstun portion of your post was incorrect, I've just gotta point out that it took me a while to prove that wrong. It takes a LOT of time and work to setup these formulas in a controlled environment, and its even harder transferring them onto the playing field. Everyone should recognize that formula derived in 0-grav settings say only 1 thing we can really use to inform our decisions: **** is complicated.

The end result will be the desired effect of speeding up gameplay and decreasing survivability. We just have to try different fixes to see what works.

Man, I remember hating the smashlab so much after realizing what crap their work on hitstun was... I also remember this specific post from when I first got here ;p (oh the memories <3)
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
OK. Here's the order I'd want KOs off the top to follow (on the starters).

1. Lowest ceiling + Platforms = Lowest KOs on Warioware

2. 2nd Lowest ceiling w/o Platforms somewhat equivalent to 3rd lowest ceiling and 1 platform = SV/FD (~09A/~095)
3. Battlefield (I'm thinking of setting that ceiling to 0A0)

4. PSII (no stage size changes)

So there will be a range of KO% across the neutrals, with the campiest stages being reduced in size more and platform combos (and tech chase KOs) being taken into account.

Lowering the ceiling benifits low KO% moves slightly more % wise than formerly high % KO moves as a fraction of the former KO power, which isn't a bad thing necessarily. The actual KO% reduction obviously scales down with more powerful KOing moves, and the effect isn't pronounced even on extremely powerful moves such as fully-charged PK-love. The KO% change also is not totally consistent. This is why I'm gathering data on vertical KOs for many different moves on these stages.

If you guys have specific moves I should test out let me know. Right now I've been using Lucas, who has moves that KOs off the top at 30-49, 60-85, 108-150 and 125-167 (on PSII, Jiggs to Bowser). I'm also using shuttle loop cause... its shuttle loop and I use MK (inb4bias). I'm not evaluating effect with DI since I'm strictly looking at the effect of the vertical change with different kb permutations, damage and angles not actually finding concrete KO% worth memorizing, I'll be testing moves with DI once both vertical and horizontal adjustments are being looked at.

I've got off today so it'll be a good chance to work on this :D
 

leafgreen386

Dirty camper
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
3,577
Location
Playing melee and smash ultimate
I always thought it was cool how FD and BF had the same ceiling heights, but I can see why you wanna change that.

Anyway, have you tested KO percents against FFers? I'm pretty sure falcon is gonna be killed way later off the top than bowser will be (especially now that bowser is no longer the heaviest char in the game).
 

Revven

FrankerZ
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
7,550
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
I'd recommend trying somewhat "weaker" vertical KO moves like Fox's Usmash and Sheik's Usmash to see the effects the ceiling changes may have on those as well.
 

VietGeek

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
8,133
I just wanna come in and say that I do not agree to NOT changing PSII's boundaries. At least decrease them proportionately less than say the next largest neutral. Not just the ceiling but both the horizontal boundaries as well.

I already know you'll say no. In fact I'm counting on it. However since the silence in regards to changing ledge snap lengths usually means no in that regards, we're basically looking at a game that's so less gimp-centric than Melee that direct KOs are really the only option for a large amount of characters (obvious information: about everyone in the Brawl cast has a ******** recovery and only a handful of characters have equally ******** gimping abilities).

I've been waiting for some video proof of how idiotic Dreamland 64 sized boundaries (slight exaggeration...but slight) really are, it's getting uploaded and I'll edit it in this post later.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTwjs2CdNbA#t=2m53s

Fox's up-smash is not weaker than Lucas's up-air. What are you smoking?
PAL Melee :012:
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
I've been using Lucas, who has moves that KOs off the top at 30-49, 60-85, 108-150 and 125-167 (on PSII, Jiggs to Bowser).
Just to clarify, those moves I referred to which mysteriously got misconstrued as being only up-smash are: Lucas's charged pk-love, un-charged pk-love, up-throw, up-air. I've also done some testing using Ganon's moveset, shuttle loop, MK up-throw, Marth tipper up-tilt, and a bunch of others I'm not gonna bother listing.
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
I just wanna come in and say that I do not agree to NOT changing PSII's boundaries. At least decrease them proportionately less than say the next largest neutral. Not just the ceiling but both the horizontal boundaries as well.

I already know you'll say no. In fact I'm counting on it. However since the silence in regards to changing ledge snap lengths usually means no in that regards, we're basically looking at a game that's so less gimp-centric than Melee that direct KOs are really the only option for a large amount of characters (obvious information: about everyone in the Brawl cast has a ******** recovery and only a handful of characters have equally ******** gimping abilities).
Melee's recovery gimping game is so overrated. Its really cool on one end (that of the person recovering, and tbh even that isn't true at all if you take into account the character currently DOMINATING that game), while the other person uh... walks slightly to space tilts/smashes. Man that's so exciting I totally want to recreate it! :dizzy:


Anyway I don't want to change PSII's ceiling, but I would consider moving in the sides somewhat. If other b+broomers (not just wbr) want to change PSII than I'll consider it obv, but I think its a little too much to change every one of the starters... and PSII really isn't mangoland. The KO% difference isn't nearly that huge.
 

VietGeek

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
8,133
I'll agree Melee's gimping game looks really dumb but it works out well, and really sets the pace of the game and makes getting clutch kills more feasible for characters that can't proactively gimp (but this is that ledgehogging concept, so irrelevant). Speaking merely about ledgegrab lengths, some are really ridiculous. Fox should not be able to recover vertically almost a whole character length up BF and Rarth should not be having Dtilt range as DS's horizontal grab-box either. Personally I prefer the air, Wolf's lengths is the perfect medium. Some characters like Bowser or DK can deserve a little more leeway but that should be a case-by-case basis; as it is recovery for everyone is very forgiving right now overall.

But yeah...that's fine with me I guess. In retrospect I wonder what would happen if Sakurai appeased to those who miss Mangoland and left it in Brawl...

*shudder*
 

Veril

Frame Savant
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,062
Location
Kent Lakes, New York
DS's grab range is what!? O.o

Holy ****, son!

I really like some of the ridiculous grab ranges and we've all gotten used to them. I think Bowser's needs to be increased.

A more legit argument imo would be to decrease some characters ledgegrab distance to weaken ledgestalling... but if ledge invincibilty decay is implemented (which it would if it existed, but it doesn't yet) we're already weakening ledgecamping/stalling quite a bit.
 

VietGeek

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
8,133
err i mean dtilt sword range length...let's go with falchion size for accuracy xD

but we'll see i suppose, but so many characters have stalls in this game that recovering is so much easier especially with the "stronger" DI (not if that's true or not or if it's just plain easier to do).

personally i would have thought that argument wasn't really that good except for a few key characters (MK, GnW, Lucario, perhaps Marth and Ike, possibly Wolf on BF [scar jump bair into regrab]). it would make it look like i was jabbing at only a select few characters instead of almost everyone.

but eh, we'll let the wheel of fate turn for this one. =V
 

Plum

Has never eaten a plum.
Premium
Joined
Jun 28, 2008
Messages
3,458
Location
Rochester, NY
I'm fine with PSII being the largest neutral, but to be honest I wouldn't mind if the sides were brought in a little bit. Key word is that I wouldn't mind, as in I can go either way with it and still be happy enough.

It's a fantastic stage without any adjustments, and if it weren't for Smashville being Smashville (**** yeah) it would be my favorite neutral to play on.
 
Top Bottom