There's a lot of stuff being said and I'm discussing bits and pieces of it. I'll try to make sure to quote here and respond only stuff in quotes.
EDIT: Oh XD you're talking to someone else. Well, I'm probably kind of confusing too. I try to work around it though.
But it's not the same. DACUS has no lag (you start the charge and movement immediately). Wavedash has more than 10 frames before you actually start the charge. DACUS also lets you slide while charging. I do like the other points of your post though [hence my "like" on it].
? I'm not clear what you mean by this... it takes some practice and it's very situational, but the situations to use it always seem fairly obvious to me (just a question of use it or bait). I think you exaggerate the difficulty of implementing the DACUS - it's a KO tool and a mixup. If you want to enlighten me as to why it's hard, by all means, but... you don't clarify what this means when I reread your post and I don't agree prima facie, so we're currently stuck. Also, the fact that you spent two years practicing one use of wavedashing suggests it's very difficult to use effectively - I practiced DACUSing for like 4 hours plus playing with people and I can already throw it out when I'm looking for a KO off a whiffed attack.
Do you DACUS enough? If you're used to a character's DACUS lengths (Falco), scoring a KO with it is hardly difficult (especially BDACUS, pretty sure that's the same length every time), it's not like you can DACUS a ton of different lengths, but one wrong wavedash angle and you just upsmashed the air or behind your opponent (although Falco's sourspot makes this a fun KO move), vs simply knowing your distances and executing the DACUS. Also wavedash usmash is jump->airdodge while holding down -> upsmash, DACUS is attack while dashing -> upsmash, or cstick down to z+up on the control stick, there is less analog stick movement and (if you don't tap jump) less pressing of buttons, so unless complicated =/= hitting more buttons for a similar result, then yes actually, it is more complicated - there are even people who DACUS by just flicking the cstick down then up while running, that's even simpler.
Granted, you've practiced wavedashing well over 2 years, I haven't, so good for you. This is all opinion anyway, so if you find wavedashing simpler, keep using it, I'll stick to the DACUS in Brawl and P:M and work on wavesmashing and wavedashing, thank you.
First, I don't really care either way. Why? You've begged the question by assuming that wavedashing necessarily adds depth for me. I'm not used to it, so removing doesn't actually remove all this stuff from my gameplay, because it hasn't ever really been there. And even now, when I've started implementing more "advanced" stuff, I don't really care when I play Brawl because I'm used to what you would probably call 'limited' movement. So
it wouldn't make that big a difference or remove ways to harm my opponent if it weren't in TO ME. (I said this in my last post [in capital letters] and that part was ignored... I'll make more noticeable the part people seemed to ignore).
That said, it adds depth to the game for others, so if it comes back I won't be angry or anything - just means I'll have more people who usually play Melee to play with.
Some other stuff:
You've ignore that melee wavedash mechanics necessarily also removes some approach options - a simple example is the short hop air dodge - not always effective but certain characters like Fox can make good use of it, especially vs Marth and other large sword ranges. You also make getting down from juggles much harder - maybe that's something you appreciate, but if "recovering is too easy because the other guy loses options," you create the problem "juggling is too easy because the other guy loses options" - also Brawl certainly still has edgeguarding despite not having wavedashing (it's less prominent than Melee but Diddy Kongs are definitely gimped along with Olimars, Snakes, Falcos, and MKs at least gimp or KO each other offstage despite the autosweetspots). I'm sure we could do a list of pros and cons to each kind of airdodge - wavedashing will probably come out on top, but to act like Brawl airdodge has no advantage is rather silly, and you're playing it up like anyone who thinks the brawl airdodge has benefits is stupid. (One example for the list is ledgehop airdodge - Melee you can waveland but in Brawl you can airdodge through much more safely because of how the physics engine runs - you don't pause dramatically and start falling in Brawl so there is less time to react and punish the Brawl version if your opponent has committed compared to Melee).
Also if you remove a mechanic, you're only a terrible game designer if there was never a compensation to begin with. Based on the fact that SSB64 is a playable, fun game that can be made very competitive [Brawl is too but you seem to disagree strongly], there clearly are things to compensate for wavedashing. They
aren't perfect substitutes, but you've ignored the fact that the game empirically still runs and plays well and fun without wavedashing (I'm looking at Smash 64 here, trying to avoid the "Brawl sucks" diatribes). Maybe the game is "better" with wavedashing but if the designer wants to run the game a certain way and DACUS/wavedash/airdodge doesn't fit to them, it's their right to take it out (and your right to refuse to play the game).
Random note, Kie invented some trick on the ledge that lets Peach get on the level almost instantly - I'm not entirely clear what it is because I only saw another Peach using it in a matchup, but apparently there is some replacement that at least Peach can access. She can't get on the ledge like that but she can get off it pretty safely, so her getting off the ledge is easier. (It's mentioned at about 1:10, the commentator calls it "using lift"...)P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPbTWG-m3O0
If you're implying Smash 64 is a bad game, you're dearly mistaken. If you're implying that no wavedash = smash 64, that's an idiotic statement unless he removes airdodging entirely (which is one of the most popular casual mechanic, so the odds of that are extremely low) and also teching (Isai greenhouse combos too good) which is also extremely unlikely.
I don't mind the glitch too much, although I agree it definitely made Brawl take a hit, fanbase-wise (and combo-wise, although combos aren't extinct for it). But I've played Brawl enough to where I'm used to it so it's less of a big deal to me than many Melee vets.
Actually, I'd love to see it slightly re-implemented where it only applies for knockback above a certain level (I dunno, there's some scale or something for it, I read that an fmash at like 100% averages out to about 165 knockback, so maybe for blows above 160 knockback) so that you can momentum cancel the big hits but the combos stay intact (ex: you can't momentum cancel if you take less than a certain amount of knockback) because it would not only place emphasis on gimping (Can't momentum cancel MK shuttle loop at low percents) but it would also increase survivability, which I find makes the game more interesting (I find some of the most entertaining matches to be the ones where Armada is surviving to 180+% or Masha is surviving beyond 200% as Falco in Brawl). It would be an AT that adds some depth to the game without sacrificing combos (possibly make it that throws could never be momentum-cancelled, so Fox keeps his uthrow-> uair if it returns like in Melee).
Well that was a lot of stuff to say. You don't need to agree with me by any stretch but if you want me to agree with you, explaining some stuff some more (I'm mainly referring to the DACUS part), then by all means, I'll read it and think about it some more.
indeed, i've been talking to lancerstaff except for the DACUS/wavedashing paragraph and the "why it doesn't make sense for people to not care either way" bit.
1) "you're downplaying..."
look, it's pretty easy to argue that the
act of doing a single wavedash is simpler than the
act of doing a single DACUS, even if you don't consider having to aim a DACUS. if you really want to litigate this point, i think i could put forth a convincing argument. but as you point out, this observation doesn't really address the difficulty of implementing each technique as fully as possible into one's game. these are somewhat different issues, as you seem to know. the former regards input difficulty, the latter regards decision-making difficulty.
so yes, i'd agree that in a sense DACUS is easier to "master" overall because, technical input aside (and no, it's not really hard either), its uses are far more narrow. it doesn't take much to get to the point to know when one is certainly called for, or at least when you should take a shot with one. however, my issue with you bringing up this point how and why you did was how you compared it with wavedashing in the same terms. to categorically master wavedashing entails much more than to categorically master DACUSing, yes. you can be in the 99th percentile of some usages of wavedashing and still not be able to waveland onto a platform from underneath to chase for an air combo. however, you can't merely say that implementing DACUS is
generally easier just because the greatest heights of wavedashing skill are very difficult to master--or even impossible to master, considering the fact that it is so versatile that one person's "mastery" can look very different from another's. this seems to ignore, as i stated, that the most simple implementations of wavedashing can still be incredibly useful. in fact, i think it's pretty easy to argue that it is much easier to implement the easiest uses of wavedashing than the one-ish possible implementation of DACUSing. just wavedashing every so often defensively can be incredibly useful, and is very, very easy to do--you don't even really have to think about it, and you certainly don't have to aim it or recognize an opening. if you go this deep into the analysis, you should realize that a finalized sort of "easier/harder" comparison is just more trouble than its worth.
to recapitulate: you said, "So no, DACUS isn't that hard, while wavedashing can be/is." so given what i've just said, you should be able to see now that my point is as such: your comparison here is reductive. "i pretty much agreed with you until you made this generalization," is basically what i'm saying. if you would have left it at "implementing a DACUS is pretty easy, while truly implementing wavedashing isn't," it would have been much less of an offense--i'd only have asked you to clarify what "truly implementing" entailed, maybe. you tried to take it all the way to the abstract "easy vs. hard" and created slippage.
2) "there is nothing more complicated..."
wavedashing into an upsmash is basically as hard as short-hopping and using the c-stick to do an up-air. that's all you do with your right hand. jump to c-stick. your left had just does the same motion it always does when wavedashing--slamming down l or r and pointing the stick in a direction, which is essential one hand-movement in the brain if you have any amount of practice with it. there is an argument that there is empirically more going on with a DACUS mentally in this way--even before you factor in that you have decide to DACUS, whereas with a wavedash you can just say "oh i should upsmash now" after an easy wavedash. but in terms of raw input i guess they're really close, in the final analysis--my only point is that they're different enough in input and close enough in difficulty for it to clearly be foolish to say one is much easier than the other in terms of raw input. and there isn't less analog stick movement with DACUS. you have to dash with the left stick, then you have to hit up (with z) to finish it. 2 is greater than 1 last time i checked.
3) "Granted, you've practiced wavedashing well over 2 years, I haven't, so good for you. This is all opinion anyway, so if you find wavedashing simpler, keep using it, I'll stick to the DACUS in Brawl and P:M and work on wavesmashing and wavedashing, thank you." i kinda liked you until i read this facile horse ****.
4) "one wrong wavedash angle and you just upsmashed the air or behind your opponent." what the **** are you talking about? even if this made sense as a sentence (or was factually accurate, which it isn't if i'm deciphering correctly), it would be more of your downplaying/exaggerating rhetoric. you've sacrificed accuracy for attempted persuasiveness a time or two. you point out all the little things that can go wrong with a wavedash and fail to mention the ways you can mess up a DACUS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlGIl27bJQM
this video outlines all the actions you can accidentally perform when failing to perform a DACUS. all of them factor into the calculation of "what if" that you're only really applying to wavedashing. there is a lot that can go wrong, as you see. yes, for wavedashing, if you accidentally push left stick too far horizontally, you will just air dodge. but you should note that this only is a risk if you're trying to do the longest wavedash possible. if you're not as confident in your accuracy with the left stick, you can always err on the side of a shorter wavedash to avoid airdodging. in fact, if i was trying to teach someone how to do a wavedash, i'd start them off at like a 45-55 degree angle. i'm just calling for a more evenhanded evaluation of how risky the inputs are. "one wrong wavedash angle and you're dead" is disingenuous and patently leading.
also, DACUS is a dash attack that locks you into an upsmash--it's a HUGE commitment (even if you always get the input right) compared to something that puts you into a body-length slide out of which you can do
any action. a wavedash isn't even as risky as any smash attack on its own because of this. it doesn't lock you into anything. regardless, just go watch 1000 matches. it's pretty rare to die from a botched wavedash. most of the time, like i said, it's an SD on yoshi's because of the slanted edge (solution: don't try), or someone is just wavedash happy and catches something big in the face because they aren't thinking. also, i watched some final with mango and some other guy the other day...someone missed like 10 platform wavelands (outputting airdodges) and really didn't get punished at all for it.
5) "First, I don't really care either way."
you've missed a few marks here.
"i don't care one way or the other if they take steroids out of baseball, because
I never use them."
the problem is that you're not playing against yourself in a vacuum. it would matter to you because it would have a direct impact on how others played against you and therefore how you played. so to say "it doesn't add depth for me" is false because it adds depth even if you never personally use it. the fact that you even have to think about the possibility of a wavedash adds depth to your game that you have to reckon with.
of course it is fine to say "i'd be open to a game that didn't have wavedashing in it, as well as one with wavedashing in it, and i'm not too adamant about either one," but that's very different from saying differing depths don't affect you because you never personally swim at them. i've said the former myself more than once, in fact. i care about depth because it's what makes a game, really, but i realize a game can be deep without wavedashing. i wasn't clear enough about this nuance in this one post in question because i've been saying similar things for awhile now across various other posts, so i'm sorry to have distressed you in this way, especially since you seemingly haven't read the others (not that i expect you to, or not that you necessarily should).
6) "You've ignore that melee wavedash mechanics necessarily also removes some approach options"
obviously taking out wavedashing will automatically open up some modicum of depth, as you say. other things will be possible in its absence. i have argued that that which will be lost (mostly, many combos) dwarfs these consolations. but if you combine them with a few more mechanics that compensate for what was lost, all the better.
when i said "you're a bad designer if you just cut something out without thinking about it" i wasn't speaking about anyone in particular, not even sakurai. this wasn't clear. i was just trying to address a certain mindset that is necessary to make games well that seems to be floating around everywhere. it's just like sakurai himself said, to paraphrase, "it wasn't like we were sitting there asking 'should we take wavedashing out or leave it in?'" you can't think of wavedashing as this discrete entity that should either live or die, so people who single it out and say "absolutely yes it should be in" or the contrary are really missing the point. if you're considering things like both you and i have cited that aren't "perfect substitutes" for wavedashing but operate in the space where wavedashing otherwise would, you're beyond my reproach.
7) "if you're implying smash 64 is a bad game"
i didn't say it was a bad game, i said it was a game i have played. look, smash 64 was fun and has its charms still, but it's aged. the idea is that you want to move laterally in depth or create more depth. and you certainly don't want to keep making the same game over and over and over. i would be fine if 4 was as different from all the other games as 64, melee, and brawl are from each other, though as a fan of depth i'd much prefer if it did so by taking a lateral step from something as deep as melee, rather than taking a step back towards 64 like brawl arguably did. as i've said a few times, it doesn't have to be melee. the point of my comment, then, was that if you just remove elements in chunks without adding or tweaking things, you're going to be taking steps backwards. so it was more a point about people's argumentation rather than sakurai's wherewithal to make a decent game.
if you go back and play old zeldas or marios, you realize how much you take for granted the little advancements the games have made over the years. those games were behemoths of their time, but if wii u zelda came out and had dungeons as complex as zelda 1, you'd throw it in the trash.
8) "If you're implying that no wavedash = smash 64..."
if you read what i said and that thought crossed your mind, you need to take a look in the mirror.
