The "Advance Techniques" from Melee. Sensible or Illogical?

[D-idara]

Wow, ok wait a second.



1. You did not provide a counter argument for L canceling. you just said "It's still stupid/ redundant... Tech barrier just for the sake of tech barrier" is not a counterargument when I gave a reason for tech barrier. Redundancy is not a counter argument because playing the same character multiple rounds and inputting the same motion regardless of difficulty is redundant by definition. There is a reason why more of this "redundancy" is needed because it is a balance mechanism, which I'll explain in a bit.



2. Getting an advantage "just because of how you do commands" is not called bad design, it's called playing a video game. You and I will continuously press commands that will net us advantages and disadvantages. My ability to press commands that would require you to train and you can not do them to net yourself an advantage, which if ultimately leads you to losing, MAKES ME BETTER THAN YOU AT THIS VIDEO GAME.



3."Your good because you are good and not because of muscle memory"... O.K Ima go ahead and flat out say you must have only played Brawl and not Melee competitively, yes? Not saying one is better than the other. Im saying that statement showed a lack of understanding for a game like Melee OR Streetighter. Everything is, in some form, muscle memory! Not only that, it is a combination of your decisions and your superb muscle memory that make you a good player, hence, why people "go to the lab" to get better at a game.

Also, people enjoy watching others "perform" these feats. People go crazy when you are able to do a difficult/flashy combo because everyone can make the decision to do it BUT NOT EVERYONE CAN EXECUTE IT. Which is what makes it impressive and entertaining. Imagine if execution was easy. Then WTF is the point of playing the game if all I have to do is read online what decisions I have to make given X situation and I win?

You know what really absolutely destroys all this "remove tech" arguments? Is the fact that without tech skill, certain characters would be insanely broken in all fighting games. Imagine having melee falco/fox in melee without tech needed to execute what they do... You know what you get???? A brawl Metaknight! We damn sure prefer someone possibly faulting on tech on an amazing character because their LEARNING CURVE should be a part of their BALANCING MECHANISM. This way, even if people conquer the tech skills and all decision making, their is still high possibility of them faulting on either tech or decision, which takes the character down a couple notches compared to ONLY faulting on decision making.



4. Wow really? Street fighter is a badly designed game???? I don't even have to comment on this one.... I really want to here how SF is a badly designed game and then want to here your argument for why "game X" is a good design and is nothing like streetfighter.

Tech skill should only be added when it's absolutely necessary to grant more options to the player, but tech skill for the sake of 'separating the pros' is just an etilist way of thinking, you don't want anyone getting into the game if they don't go through the struggle of doing glitchy, jagged techs? I agree with wavedash although the input for wavedash should be much more easier to execute and not jarring, but that's because wavedash grants movement options that can be used on the game strategically, there's nothing strategical about L-Cancel, you always want to have less ending lag on your air attacks so you always have to L-Cancel, just lower the landing lag altogether, automatic L-Cancel, now YOU CAN FOCUS ON THE GAME.

So you're better than me, want an e-Cookie or something? I'm practicing and putting up with the bull**** that's wavedash (Although I still don't get how to L-Cancel out of a shorthop attack, because I clearly press L and nothing happens). And you want to know about a fighting game with good design? Skullgirls, Mortal Kombat 9 and Super Smash Bros. as a whole, Skullgirls because the forgiving inputs open room for much more fluid and creative combos, and let the player jump straight to the action after 5 minutes, as opposed to jumping 'straight' to the action after practicing something that should be much simpler for a year. Mortal Kombat 9 because the inputs are also much more forgiving than Street Fighter's and the 'Build your own combo' system lets you do combos that don't need to be frame-perfect for the game to actually recognize them. And Smash because it's a fighting game that takes pride in the simplicity and streamlining of the game mechanics, while achieving a much better form of depth. Street Fighter II was only tailored to the people who played SF, SFIII to the people that played either II or I, and the same with IV, Street Fighter's a game made by etilists, for etilists, it refuses to evolve, and don't come at me with the 'inputs are easier on IV' **** because they're still much less forgiving than other games who have actually evolved.

Yes, Brawl Metaknight depended only on your decision-making skills to win, and that's how it should be. Also, good game design has a learning curve that the game provides for you, it starts easing you and teaching you the techniques and once you're at the top, the tech skill has developed naturally, without the jarring concept of having to learn and research the techniques and getting your fingers used to the input. That's the difference between a difficulty curve and a tech barrier, difficulty curves don't punish new players, they aim to make the new players better gradually, and not through repeated practice, but through having a good time. Tech barriers aim to keep the competitive community to an extremely-reduced little elite full of stuck-up etilists that get their jimmies rustled when a game evolves and makes the inputs easier because their self-inflated egos won't tolerate people not having to go through the same bull**** as them to get "good" at the game.

You shouldn't have to go online and look up how do things, they should come naturally through the game's progression.

 

[Jackson]

Tech skill should only be added when it's absolutely necessary to grant more options to the player, but tech skill for the sake of 'separating the pros' is just an etilist way of thinking, you don't want anyone getting into the game if they don't go through the struggle of doing glitchy, jagged techs? I agree with wavedash although the input for wavedash should be much more easier to execute and not jarring, but that's because wavedash grants movement options that can be used on the game strategically, there's nothing strategical about L-Cancel, you always want to have less ending lag on your air attacks so you always have to L-Cancel, just lower the landing lag altogether, automatic L-Cancel, now YOU CAN FOCUS ON THE GAME.

So you're better than me, want an e-Cookie or something? I'm practicing and putting up with the bull**** that's wavedash (Although I still don't get how to L-Cancel out of a shorthop attack, because I clearly press L and nothing happens). And you want to know about a fighting game with good design? Skullgirls, Mortal Kombat 9 and Super Smash Bros. as a whole, Skullgirls because the forgiving inputs open room for much more fluid and creative combos, and let the player jump straight to the action after 5 minutes, as opposed to jumping 'straight' to the action after practicing something that should be much simpler for a year. Mortal Kombat 9 because the inputs are also much more forgiving than Street Fighter's and the 'Build your own combo' system lets you do combos that don't need to be frame-perfect for the game to actually recognize them. And Smash because it's a fighting game that takes pride in the simplicity and streamlining of the game mechanics, while achieving a much better form of depth. Street Fighter II was only tailored to the people who played SF, SFIII to the people that played either II or I, and the same with IV, Street Fighter's a game made by etilists, for etilists, it refuses to evolve, and don't come at me with the 'inputs are easier on IV' **** because they're still much less forgiving than other games who have actually evolved.

Yes, Brawl Metaknight depended only on your decision-making skills to win, and that's how it should be.

That's also a valid argument.

 

[Chiroz]

Wow, ok wait a second.



1. You did not provide a counter argument for L canceling. you just said "It's still stupid/ redundant... Tech barrier just for the sake of tech barrier" is not a counterargument when I gave a reason for tech barrier. Redundancy is not a counter argument because playing the same character multiple rounds and inputting the same motion regardless of difficulty is redundant by definition. There is a reason why more of this "redundancy" is needed because it is a balance mechanism, which I'll explain in a bit.



2. Getting an advantage "just because of how you do commands" is not called bad design, it's called playing a video game. You and I will continuously press commands that will net us advantages and disadvantages. My ability to press commands that would require you to train and you can not do them to net yourself an advantage, which if ultimately leads you to losing, MAKES ME BETTER THAN YOU AT THIS VIDEO GAME.



3."Your good because you are good and not because of muscle memory"... O.K Ima go ahead and flat out say you must have only played Brawl and not Melee competitively, yes? Not saying one is better than the other. Im saying that statement showed a lack of understanding for a game like Melee OR Streetighter. Everything is, in some form, muscle memory! Not only that, it is a combination of your decisions and your superb muscle memory that make you a good player, hence, why people "go to the lab" to get better at a game.

Also, people enjoy watching others "perform" these feats. People go crazy when you are able to do a difficult/flashy combo because everyone can make the decision to do it BUT NOT EVERYONE CAN EXECUTE IT. Which is what makes it impressive and entertaining. Imagine if execution was easy. Then WTF is the point of playing the game if all I have to do is read online what decisions I have to make given X situation and I win?

You know what really absolutely destroys all this "remove tech" arguments? Is the fact that without tech skill, certain characters would be insanely broken in all fighting games. Imagine having melee falco/fox in melee without tech needed to execute what they do... You know what you get???? A brawl Metaknight! We damn sure prefer someone possibly faulting on tech on an amazing character because their LEARNING CURVE should be a part of their BALANCING MECHANISM. This way, even if people conquer the tech skills and all decision making, their is still high possibility of them faulting on either tech or decision, which takes the character down a couple notches compared to ONLY faulting on decision making.



4. Wow really? Street fighter is a badly designed game???? I don't even have to comment on this one.... I really want to here how SF is a badly designed game and then want to here your argument for why "game X" is a good design and is nothing like streetfighter.

Most of your arguments are completely wrong, this coming from a guy who thoroughly despises D-iadara's personality (no offense,I just think you are a spoiled kid, although lately you've been actually trying stuff and your arguments seem to be based more on personal experience than on just "I think this and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong").

Having tech skill for the sake of tech skill IS seen as bad design in the current times. It wasn't before, but as time goes by this has been something that has been addressed in many, many different genres.

I won't really get much into this argument but just quote you on this:

"Imagine if execution was easy. Then WTF is the point of playing the game if all I have to do is read online what decisions I have to make given X situation and I win?"

Read this a couple of times and realize that you are the one fighting for techskill which is the thing you can read online and "do to win".

Although I would love for you to point me to a guide that tells me exactly what to do in every single matchup at every single % on every single centimetre on the map, while also taking into account things such as my opponents %, his current position on the map and also taking into his account his bad habits, his current control of the stage, what approaches he uses the most and such (my, my this would be a really great guide to read! I really want that link), strategy is impossible to "read online and win", it is literally what sets pros apart from any person who just learns all the tech skills.

Basically that line is actually conceding the victory to D-idara, that is, if things were as black and white as both of you seem to be portraying it. As if strategy was taken completely out of the game (as you claimed with tech skill), then whomever knew the most tech skills would win, and thus reading online which tech skill to use would actually make you win, since there would be no strategy whatsoever.

Still, there are shades of gray in this topic and some techs like Wavedashing, although they might have a semi-complicated input, are justified because of how much options and depth they add to the game. Could the input be simplified? Yes it could, and it would actually be a change for the better. Simplifying an input doesn't ruin the game in any way.

Look at LoL, was changing the spells to Q, W, E, R instead of having to memorize a hotkey for every single spell of every single champion (1000+ hotkeys) a bad change? It took away from the "look online, spend hours reading and be better at the game than someone who doesn't know all 1000+ hotkeys). But if it was such a bad change then why does every single MOBA and even most of the current RTS follow the same example and simplified their hotkeys to be universal around all characters/heroes/races. (Including DoTA 2 which is known for having a higher tech skill).

Making stuff arbitrarily hard, with no logic whatsoever makes no sense.

Also just as a side note, if you do not think that implementing wavedash into your game is harder than actually learning it then you obviously know nothing of Melee yourself. If you really think that simplifying Wavedashing to a 1 button input would make it "insta-win" then you probably have never actually integrated Wavedashing into your neutral/baiting game and don't understand just how hard it is to strategize around using your various movement options effectively without becoming predictable.

 

[DontHate-]

First, good job on presenting a much more clear and concrete argument

Note: I use caps not to scream but to simply emphasize :>

Tech skill should only be added when it's absolutely necessary to grant more options to the player, but tech skill for the sake of 'separating the pros' is just an etilist way of thinking, you don't want anyone getting into the game if they don't go through the struggle of doing glitchy, jagged techs? I agree with wavedash although the input for wavedash should be much more easier to execute and not jarring, but that's because wavedash grants movement options that can be used on the game strategically, there's nothing strategical about L-Cancel, you always want to have less ending lag on your air attacks so you always have to L-Cancel, just lower the landing lag altogether, automatic L-Cancel, now YOU CAN FOCUS ON THE GAME.

In a video game, everyone wants the most optimal options for all their decisions. It is the ability to perform them that has you playing the video game in the first place. If we begin giving these optimal options to players and justify it with "because the player is always going to want to do this" then we can justify removing the input for blocking or rolling and have the game block and/or roll when it is most optimal for us. That way, "we can focus more on the game"....

So you're better than me, want an e-Cookie or something?

The fact that you are on a forum for a video game proves that you care to some extent about winning or losing in that game. The point of competing is pride and/or money, which is ALWAYS at stake when playing video games competitively. If you don't want this game to be competitive, then thats another story. So, yes, Id gladly collect my e-cookie if e-cookies are what's at stake.

I'm practicing and putting up with the bull**** that's wavedash (Although I still don't get how to L-Cancel out of a shorthop attack, because I clearly press L and nothing happens). And you want to know about a fighting game with good design? Skullgirls, Mortal Kombat 9 and Super Smash Bros. as a whole, Skullgirls because the forgiving inputs open room for much more fluid and creative combos, and let the player jump straight to the action after 5 minutes, as opposed to jumping 'straight' to the action after practicing something that should be much simpler for a year. Mortal Kombat 9 because the inputs are also much more forgiving than Street Fighter's and the 'Build your own combo' system lets you do combos that don't need to be frame-perfect for the game to actually recognize them. And Smash because it's a fighting game that takes pride in the simplicity and streamlining of the game mechanics, while achieving a much better form of depth. Street Fighter II was only tailored to the people who played SF, SFIII to the people that played either II or I, and the same with IV, Street Fighter's a game made by etilists, for etilists, it refuses to evolve, and don't come at me with the 'inputs are easier on IV' **** because they're still much less forgiving than other games who have actually evolved.

Your previous argument included tech skill and muscle memory. If you are going to say that skull girls and mk9 (i dont know why you included SSB since YOU ARE ARGUING THAT SSB HAS TOO MUCH TECH) don't have high-level tech you are dead wrong. Both those games require a CRAZZYYYYY amount of tech at highlevel play. **** you wouldn't even imagine. **** that is not intuitive. I knew a 50% combo with ermac in Mk9. IT TOOK ME A FREAKING MONTH TO DO IT ONCE IN AN ACTUAL MATCH. I've played both competitively and the amount of muscle memory/ tech skill required is on par with streetfighter.

As for "jumping in a playing"; this is what separates casual play from competitive play. You want to play this game casually, then play the way it is intended. Put items on, all stages, and do not do any of the tech. Anyone that wants to jump in and play and have fun can do it! A friend of mine took his wii to school (he knows how to play competitive) and had a blast with people who never played project M (or supersmash bros) because he clearly knew that it was not a competitive scene, but rather, one to relax with no pressure. He simply toned down his play style and now those people actually want to go out and buy a wii to play a moded version of a game because they found it fun AT IT's ENTRY LEVEL. Ain't that some ****? However, if you (or they) want to play competitively, you will need to learn the inner workings of the game. Just like skull girls, mk9, streetfighter, AND SSB.

Yes, Brawl Metaknight depended only on your decision-making skills to win, and that's how it should be. Also, good game design has a learning curve that the game provides for you, it starts easing you and teaching you the techniques and once you're at the top, the tech skill has developed naturally, without the jarring concept of having to learn and research the techniques and getting your fingers used to the input. That's the difference between a difficulty curve and a tech barrier, difficulty curves don't punish new players, they aim to make the new players better gradually, and not through repeated practice, but through having a good time.

You see the "Once you are at the top, the tech skill has developed naturally" that you so casually wrote? You think it's easy to get near the top in tech skill for a game regardless of how "natural" you think it is? That stuff does not come "naturally". No matter how you put it, it will require practice.

As for "easing and teaching" you is simply a matter of the game developers including all tech possibilities in trials. What you are concerned with is exploitation. Yes, it should not have to take exploitation of a game to find something that can BE USED FUNDAMENTALLY. In that respect, I agree. However (and this is a massive point here), Exploitations are what made SSB where it's at today. We are now in the "Platinum" era of smash. Smash has never been bigger and it was because we exploited the game that got us to where we are. If we we didn't need to exploit the game, then it would have been part of the fundamentals and you and I would't be having this conversation because we would see it as part of the game mechanics, consequently, What we want now is for these exploitations to become official game mechanics and part of fundamentals.

Tech barriers aim to keep the competitive community to an extremely-reduced little elite full of stuck-up etilists that get their jimmies rustled when a game evolves and makes the inputs easier because their self-inflated egos won't tolerate people not having to go through the same bull**** as them to get "good" at the game.

This is in part true (and a hilarious point, but true none the less). However, what you are referring to here is simply the competitive community for practically everything on the planet. If You think people in Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan are not as stuck-up as the competitive scene for smash, you're dead wrong. Unfortunately , it is just human nature and I wish it would change just as much as you do.

You shouldn't have to go online and look up how do things, they should come naturally through the game's progression.

Correct! This is why they should be part of the core game mechanics and not an exploitation. If you want more of a competitive edge, then you go online and see what people have to say about the game and how they play. There is nothing wrong with going online to get insight you might not be aware of because, more than likely, you are not going to be aware of absolutely everything in a game even if the developers flat out lay everything for you.

 

[Chiroz]

First, good job on presenting a much more clear and concrete argument

Note: I use caps not to scream but to simply emphasize :>


In a video game, everyone wants the most optimal options for all their decisions. It is the ability to perform them that has you playing the video game in the first place. If we begin giving these optimal options to players and justify it with "because the player is always going to want to do this" then we can justify removing the input for blocking or rolling and have the game block and/or roll when it is most optimal for us. That way, "we can focus more on the game"....




The fact that you are on a forum for a video game proves that you care to some extent about winning or losing in that game. The point of competing is pride and/or money, which is ALWAYS at stake when playing video games competitively. If you don't want this game to be competitive, then thats another story. So, yes, Id gladly collect my e-cookie if e-cookies are what's at stake.



Your previous argument included tech skill and muscle memory. If you are going to say that skull girls and mk9 (i dont know why you included SSB since YOU ARE ARGUING THAT SSB HAS TOO MUCH TECH) don't have high-level tech you are dead wrong. Both those games require a CRAZZYYYYY amount of tech at highlevel play. **** you wouldn't even imagine. **** that is not intuitive. I knew a 50% combo with ermac in Mk9. IT TOOK ME A FREAKING MONTH TO DO IT ONCE IN AN ACTUAL MATCH. I've played both competitively and the amount of muscle memory/ tech skill required is on par with streetfighter.

As for "jumping in a playing"; this is what separates casual play from competitive play. You want to play this game casually, then play the way it is intended. Put items on, all stages, and do not do any of the tech. Anyone that wants to jump in and play and have fun can do it! A friend of mine took his wii to school (he knows how to play competitive) and had a blast with people who never played project M (or supersmash bros) because he clearly knew that it was not a competitive scene, but rather, one to relax with no pressure. He simply toned down his play style and now those people actually want to go out and buy a wii to play a moded version of a game because they found it fun AT IT's ENTRY LEVEL. Ain't that some ****? However, if you (or they) want to play competitively, you will need to learn the inner workings of the game. Just like skull girls, mk9, streetfighter, AND SSB.



You see the "Once you are at the top, the tech skill has developed naturally" that you so casually wrote? You think it's easy to get near the top in tech skill for a game regardless of how "natural" you think it is? That stuff does not come "naturally". No matter how you put it, it will require practice.

As for "easing and teaching" you is simply a matter of the game developers including all tech possibilities in trials. What you are concerned with is exploitation. Yes, it should not have to take exploitation of a game to find something that can BE USED FUNDAMENTALLY. In that respect, I agree. However (and this is a massive point here), Exploitations are what made SSB where it's at today. We are now in the "Platinum" era of smash. Smash has never been bigger and it was because we exploited the game that got us to where we are. If we we didn't need to exploit the game, then it would have been part of the fundamentals and you and I would't be having this conversation because we would see it as part of the game mechanics, consequently, What we want now is for these exploitations to become official game mechanics and part of fundamentals.


This is in part true (and a hilarious point, but true none the less). However, what you are referring to here is simply the competitive community for practically everything on the planet. If You think people in Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan are not as stuck-up as the competitive scene for smash, you're dead wrong. Unfortunately , it is just human nature and I wish it would change just as much as you do.



Correct! This is why they should be part of the core game mechanics and not an exploitation. If you want more of a competitive edge, then you go online and see what people have to say about the game and how they play. There is nothing wrong with going online to get insight you might not be aware of because, more than likely, you are not going to be aware of absolutely everything in a game even if the developers flat out lay everything for you.

Again, you seem to confuse strategy with inputting.

"If we begin giving these optimal options to players and justify it with "because the player is always going to want to do this" then we can justify removing the input for blocking or rolling and have the game block and/or roll when it is most optimal for us"

No, deciding when to block or roll is a strategic decision, it is NOT an input, it is a decision. Pressing L is the input, its what you have to do, it isn't the decision. If on the other hand, in order to block, you had to press L + R + A + B + Z, would that add anything to the game? No, it would not, there is no reason for the blocking input to be 5 buttons when it could just be one single button.

Most of your arguments are flawed because you seem to believe that complex input = strategy and most of your arguments in defense of complex inputs are actually arguments in defense of strategizing (which no one is arguing against anyways), but inputs and strategies are completely independent of each other, except for the fact that complex inputs hinder strategies for players who have not put out the time to learn said inputs. You have not actually given any arguments that help complex inputs except for "they should be there to give people who spend time doing it bragging rights", which is the same childish disposition D-idara had weeks ago.

Why should the game require you to learn an input before you can start thinking of how to actually learn the actual intricacies of the game itself? I love Melee and I love techs such as wavedash, the game would not be even close to the marvel it is without it, but the input is not the reason why I love wavedash. The reason I love wavedash is because of the options it adds and how it branches the possible strategies in the game, the input is just something I need to learn to reach that golden level of play. Removing said input doesn't harm the game in any way, it just hurts elitist egos.

 

[DontHate-]

You completely misunderstood most of what I said.

Note: I use caps to emphasize not to scream :>

Most of your arguments are completely wrong, this coming from a guy who thoroughly despises D-iadara's personality (no offense,I just think you are a spoiled kid, although lately you've been actually trying stuff and your arguments seem to be based more on personal experience than on just "I think this and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong").

Having tech skill for the sake of tech skill IS seen as bad design in the current times. It wasn't before, but as time goes by this has been something that has been addressed in many, many different genres.

I won't really get much into this argument but just quote you on this:

"Imagine if execution was easy. Then WTF is the point of playing the game if all I have to do is read online what decisions I have to make given X situation and I win?"

Read this a couple of times and realize that you are the one fighting for techskill which is the thing you can read online and "do to win".

We are speaking about execution of the tech skill, not knowledge of it. I can have all the knowledge I want about tech, and If I can't perform it, the it's useless. Yes, having techskill for no reason is absurd so READ MY PREVIOUS POST TO THE ONE YOU REPLIED TO TO SEE THE REASONS FOR TECH I PRESENTED. BUT WHERE YOU ARE INCORRECT IS IN THINKING THAT THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE TECH TO BEGIN WITH. THERE IS REASON FOR THE TECH YOU THINK IS "tech just for tech" AS MUCH AS YOU'D LIKE TO THINK THAT THERE MIGHT NOT BE. It is different for melee because the techs were exploitations, which is why we are asking to have it as part of the core game mechanics because it turned the game from a party game to a hardcore competitive fighting game.

Although I would love for you to point me to a guide that tells me exactly what to do in every single matchup at every single % on every single centimetre on the map, while also taking into account things such as my opponents %, his current position on the map and also taking into his account his bad habits, his current control of the stage, what approaches he uses the most and such (my, my this would be a really great guide to read! I really want that link), strategy is impossible to "read online and win", it is literally what sets pros apart from any person who just learns all the tech skills.

Basically that line is actually conceding the victory to D-idara, that is, if things were as black and white as both of you seem to be portraying it. As if strategy was taken completely out of the game (as you claimed with tech skill), then whomever knew the most tech skills would win, and thus reading online which tech skill to use would actually make you win, since there would be no strategy whatsoever.

can you point me to such a guide? Just like there isn't one for every single decision for every single percentage, there isnt describing the very mili-to-mil second motion of performing a wave dash for every single character. Or when to uses such tech at every single given possible situation.

First, the fact that you see this as a "victory' or "defeat" is completely different from the way I see it. Im speaking to D-idara to get a better sense of the argument against tech and Im giving him my counter argument. There is no winning and losing FOR THIS PARTICULAR ARGUMENT because it has been had 1000x before and if there was a clear victor, him and I wouldn't be having this discussion. Also, the fact that you don't like him or his arguments in the past have nothing to do with the justification of your current argument.

On a different note, you are absolutely correct about the guide. There is no such guide with that breadth of depth, but there are guides that give you a general idea of what to always do. Like "No worries, X-move is safe of block FOR ALL CASES YOUR OPPONENT BLOCK"... You don't need so much explanation of depth to still complete the object of the game, which is winning. Hence, why guides that give you an idea of how to kill and what combos to do at what percentage (by the way, there are guides that give you a range of what to do at what percentage. You don't need the exact percentage because a decision can work from percentage W through percentage X then require something different from Y through Z) are extremely helpful and go a long way into helping you win.

Still, there are shades of gray in this topic and some techs like Wavedashing, although they might have a semi-complicated input, are justified because of how much options and depth they add to the game. Could the input be simplified? Yes it could, and it would actually be a change for the better. Simplifying an input doesn't ruin the game in any way.

Agreed! There are certainly shades of gray and I don not believe the game is as linear as him and I have been making it seem. We use extreme cases to get a grasp for what should be possible and not possible. If not, we would be using cases for " every single centimetre on the map, while also taking into account things such as my opponents %, his current position on the map and also taking into his account his bad habits, his current control of the stage", which would take forever. My argument was simply to keep tech skill such as wave-dashing. Can it be simplified, Yes. BUT WE NEED JUSTIFICATION FOR SIMPLIFYING IT TO HOLD THAT AS A STANDARD FOR JUSTIFYING THE SIMPLIFICATION OF OTHER TECH. IF WE SIMPLIFY BECAUSE OF DIFFICULTY LEVEL THEN YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH THE GAME. There needs to be a degree of difficulty to perform some moves because it is part of playing to conquer the game. I personally think that wave dashing should be kept the same since it is not at all that difficult to perform. It is no where near like doing a focus attack dash cancel in street fighter, and people manage.

Look at LoL, was changing the spells to Q, W, E, R instead of having to memorize a hotkey for every single spell of every single champion (1000+ hotkeys) a bad change? It took away from the "look online, spend hours reading and be better at the game than someone who doesn't know all 1000+ hotkeys). But if it was such a bad change then why does every single MOBA and even most of the current RTS follow the same example and simplified their hotkeys to be universal around all characters/heroes/races. (Including DoTA 2 which is known for having a higher tech skill).

Making stuff arbitrarily hard, with no logic whatsoever makes no sense.

Also just as a side note, if you do not think that implementing wavedash into your game is harder than actually learning it then you obviously know nothing of Melee yourself. If you really think that simplifying Wavedashing to a 1 button input would make it "insta-win" then you probably have never actually integrated Wavedashing into your neutral/baiting game and don't understand just how hard it is to strategize around using your various movement options effectively without becoming predictable.

ALL OF MY WUTT?? IMPLEMENTING WAVE DASHING IN AN ACTUAL GAME IS HARDER THAN DOING IT! You can practice tech all day on a non moving character, but now do it on a moving character, under pressure, without getting hit while doing it, last round-last stock for $15,000 and you'll realize it's not so easy. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THIS ONE because difficulty of execution and implementation is very subjective and has been argued over for years before smash brothers.

That LoL was an extreme case. What we are trying to determine here is if wave dashing is at that extreme of a case.

 

[D-idara]

In a video game, everyone wants the most optimal options for all their decisions. It is the ability to perform them that has you playing the video game in the first place. If we begin giving these optimal options to players and justify it with "because the player is always going to want to do this" then we can justify removing the input for blocking or rolling and have the game block and/or roll when it is most optimal for us. That way, "we can focus more on the game"....

But there's the thing, when you're going to dodge attacks, you can roll, block with a shield, shorthop backwards, wavedash backwards, there's a lot of options and all of them have their pros and cons on different situations, the thing about L-Cancel's that you should ALWAYS do it for the 'optimal' results, because there's no advantage to not L-Cancelling, so you could say that L-Cancel is the textbook definition of having tech barriers for the sake of having tech barriers. If at the moment of shorthop-attacking there was a better choice than landing with L-Cancel, then it'd be a legitimate option to have and choose between two options that might yield different results, but something that needs to be done every time to compensate for a slight lag on the game should be worked around. We should either have no way to cancel the landing lag, or have no landing lag at all, but the player having to overcompensate for the game's fault with an input doesn't make much sense, the game's fault should be removed, also removing the need for the input.

The fact that you are on a forum for a video game proves that you care to some extent about winning or losing in that game. The point of competing is pride and/or money, which is ALWAYS at stake when playing video games competitively. If you don't want this game to be competitive, then thats another story. So, yes, Id gladly collect my e-cookie if e-cookies are what's at stake.

Yes but I'm just starting to scratch the own surface of my own skills and I'm just starting to learn how to apply tech skills to my own game...most people on this forum are obviously better than me, but the fact that I actually took the time to practice the tech skills and the fact that I do know how to L-Cancel gives me a little more credibility...I'm pretty sure that even when wavedash becomes muscle memory for me...I'll still think the command could be much easier without harming the depth.

Your previous argument included tech skill and muscle memory. If you are going to say that skull girls and mk9 (i dont know why you included SSB since YOU ARE ARGUING THAT SSB HAS TOO MUCH TECH) don't have high-level tech you are dead wrong. Both those games require a CRAZZYYYYY amount of tech at highlevel play. **** you wouldn't even imagine. **** that is not intuitive. I knew a 50% combo with ermac in Mk9. IT TOOK ME A FREAKING MONTH TO DO IT ONCE IN AN ACTUAL MATCH. I've played both competitively and the amount of muscle memory/ tech skill required is on par with streetfighter.

I never argued that SSB has too much tech, I just said that it does a pretty terrible job at easing you towards the depth of the game. I understand that Skullgirls and MK9 have a huge tech skill ceiling, but there's this thing while playing those games that doesn't happen with things like Street Fighter, it's actually pretty hard to describe, but when you open Skullgirls/MK9 for the same time and you start playing, look once or twice at the command list and you feel like the game accepts that you're new and you actually feel like you could get better while having fun playing the game, the game's controls don't seem to fight againist you and the game doesn't overwhelm you with techs and the like, you start doing the commands and before you notice it, you're chaining your special attacks onto your combos and you actually feel like you're making progress, the extreme leniency of the commands on Skullgirls and the superbar on MK9 are probably part of the reason those games feel a little more intuitive and welcoming than most fighting games, but SFIV's weird attack physics, multidirectional attack inputs (8-directions) and the extreme difficulty of special attacks (Supers and Ultras) make the game feel overall unwelcoming and most times you feel like you're fighting the controllers as much as you're fighting on the game. I'm not saying that those games have lower skill ceilings than Street Fighter, it's just that Skullgirls and MK9 understand that you're still not good, SF's more like "Not an expert? Don't talk to me until you are one".

You see the "Once you are at the top, the tech skill has developed naturally" that you so casually wrote? You think it's easy to get near the top in tech skill for a game regardless of how "natural" you think it is? That stuff does not come "naturally". No matter how you put it, it will require practice.

As for "easing and teaching" you is simply a matter of the game developers including all tech possibilities in trials. What you are concerned with is exploitation. Yes, it should not have to take exploitation of a game to find something that can BE USED FUNDAMENTALLY. In that respect, I agree. However (and this is a massive point here), Exploitations are what made SSB where it's at today. We are now in the "Platinum" era of smash. Smash has never been bigger and it was because we exploited the game that got us to where we are. If we we didn't need to exploit the game, then it would have been part of the fundamentals and you and I would't be having this conversation because we would see it as part of the game mechanics, consequently, What we want now is for these exploitations to become official game mechanics and part of fundamentals.

No, getting near the top will never be easy...you don't know how many times I died on Super Mario 3D World's Champion's Road, or how many times I fell off when getting to Rainbow Road the first time, or how many tries it took me to finally beat Master Hand and Crazy Hand on Intense...but those victories and that practice were achieved through the game progression...now, I understand that skill and practice progression might be a little harder to do on fighting games, but it's still not impossible! And I'd love wavedash to become a legit skill, because, on the case of the input not changing, at least the game would hold your hand a little through a tutorial or with the computers showing you what can be done using wavedash, or on the case of the input changing, wavedashing could be much simpler with the same results. I mean, wouldn't it have been better if, during Melee's development, instead of looking at wavedash and saying "Yeah that looks cool lets leave it like that!" Sakurai would've grabbed wavedash, used the output, and assigned it to a simpler input method?

This is in part true (and a hilarious point, but true none the less). However, what you are referring to here is simply the competitive community for practically everything on the planet. If You think people in Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan are not as stuck-up as the competitive scene for smash, you're dead wrong. Unfortunately , it is just human nature and I wish it would change just as much as you do.

I know it's human nature...but it's still awful to think that just because you went through hardships, everyone should :I Even when those hardships were compensating for something bad that was fixed later, but we're not gonna change the world from Smashboards, so yeh~ :v

Correct! This is why they should be part of the core game mechanics and not an exploitation. If you want more of a competitive edge, then you go online and see what people have to say about the game and how they play. There is nothing wrong with going online to get insight you might not be aware of because, more than likely, you are not going to be aware of absolutely everything in a game even if the developers flat out lay everything for you.

I mean, I love doing things like watching Armada and Fly Amanita (I think those are my two favorite Smashers) to learn from them and the things they do on matches, and I usually go online when I want to learn more about a game's workings, one of the best examples being the enormous layer of depth on Animal Crossing and how you can make the most out of every hour of playtime, but some things on games should be explained to you within the game itself, and they should be presented well and looking fun to keep you hooked. Several videos showing Sakurai playing and doing various things like ~How to utilize shorthops~ ~How and when to wavedash~ would be optimal, especially because we'll be a LOOOOONG time without knowing frame data or exact hitboxes on this game, since the Wii U's a much tougher-to-hack machine than the Wii.

 

[LancerStaff]

Pride in its simplicity???? I didn't get the memo. I've played a **** ton of fighting games competitively and been to tournaments in many and I say hands down melee is one of the most tech and complicated fighting games I can think of.

Take a guess as to why Brawl was Brawl. SSB, and practically every game Sakurai has ever made, has been advertised as simple. Sure, that's a complete lie in Melee, but Melee was rushed and wound up very, very far off the mark.

 

[DontHate-]

Again, you seem to confuse strategy with inputting.

"If we begin giving these optimal options to players and justify it with "because the player is always going to want to do this" then we can justify removing the input for blocking or rolling and have the game block and/or roll when it is most optimal for us"

No, deciding when to block or roll is a strategic decision, it is NOT an input, it is a decision. Pressing L is the input, its what you have to do, it isn't the decision. If on the other hand, in order to block, you had to press L + R + A + B + Z, would that add anything to the game? No, it would not, there is no reason for the blocking input to be 5 buttons when it could just be one single button.

Yes, the decision to block is not the same as the input, however, your "press L+R+A+B+Z" to block is different from "press L+R+A+B+Z" to wave dash (had that been the actual input, which it is not). One allows you to block an opponents attack, which has been a fundamental part of all fighting games since before smash. HOWEVER, THE OTHER ALLOWS YOU TO SLIDE ACROSS THE STAGE AND INPUT ANY COMMAND (including block) WHICH IS A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE FROM BLOCKING. SO YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO TAKE MORE INPUTS TO PERFORM. NOT A WHOLE LOT LIKE L+R+A+B+Z but more like Y+DOWN (diagonally)+ R.

Most of your arguments are flawed because you seem to believe that complex input = strategy and most of your arguments in defense of complex inputs are actually arguments in defense of strategizing (which no one is arguing against anyways), but inputs and strategies are completely independent of each other, except for the fact that complex inputs hinder strategies for players who have not put out the time to learn said inputs. You have not actually given any arguments that help complex inputs except for "they should be there to give people who spend time doing it bragging rights", which is the same childish disposition D-idara had weeks ago.

incorrect. Him an I understood the difference between strategy and input which is why we were differentiating between "reading online" and "inputing the commands". Not only that, our main argument centered around DIFFICULTY OF EXECUTION of commands and not whether an input is actually a decision or not, which either way require you to do both (decision and action) inorder to..... do absolutely anything in life. We are arguing about the ease of the actions needed to make these decisions which i have presented if you would take the time to read (and possibly re-read) what I wrote.

Why should the game require you to learn an input before you can start thinking of how to actually learn the actual intricacies of the game itself? I love Melee and I love techs such as wavedash, the game would not be even close to the marvel it is without it, but the input is not the reason why I love wavedash. The reason I love wavedash is because of the options it adds and how it branches the possible strategies in the game, the input is just something I need to learn to reach that golden level of play. Removing said input doesn't harm the game in any way, it just hurts elitist egos.

The answer is: BECAUSE PART OF THE INTRICACIES OF THE GAME ARE THE INPUTS. So you need to think of inputs in order to think and implement the intricacies you think of. What does thinking "damn, I need to do an uppercut into a special at this given moment" without first knowing "this motion is for upper cut and this motion is for special" in order to execute. If the motion for upercut and the motion for special where not granted to you and were not made possible, THEN YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THAT IN YOUR CONSIDERATION SET OF DECISIONS/INPUTS/INTRICACIES. THIS IS WHY WE DONT SHORYUKEN CANCEL IN MELEE BECAUSE MELEE DOES NOT OFFER US THAT OPTION AS INPUT--> ACTION FOR THE GAME (you'll have to use lucario in PM for that lmao... jk). Im sure you can not possibly disagree with this at the very least.

 

[DontHate-]

Take a guess as to why Brawl was Brawl. SSB, and practically every game Sakurai has ever made, has been advertised as simple. Sure, that's a complete lie in Melee, but Melee was rushed and wound up very, very far off the mark.

I don't know about rushed, but I thought the pride he was referring to was the pride within the community not from the developers. Within the community, I didn't get the memo (at least for melee)....but for the developers, then yes, they take pride in it's simplicity in my opinion.

 

[DontHate-]

But there's the thing, when you're going to dodge attacks, you can roll, block with a shield, shorthop backwards, wavedash backwards, there's a lot of options and all of them have their pros and cons on different situations, the thing about L-Cancel's that you should ALWAYS do it for the 'optimal' results, because there's no advantage to not L-Cancelling, so you could say that L-Cancel is the textbook definition of having tech barriers for the sake of having tech barriers. If at the moment of shorthop-attacking there was a better choice than landing with L-Cancel, then it'd be a legitimate option to have and choose between two options that might yield different results, but something that needs to be done every time to compensate for a slight lag on the game should be worked around. We should either have no way to cancel the landing lag, or have no landing lag at all, but the player having to overcompensate for the game's fault with an input doesn't make much sense, the game's fault should be removed, also removing the need for the input.

Extremely well put! Although I can argue that canceling is the most optimal choice and MUST BE DONE just like there are other choices/inputs that MUST BE DONE at given situations and if either are not inputed, then you will get punished. However, I feel like that argument would not be anywhere near as elegant (although could still be correct) as the one you just made, so great job and I'll just end it here. I'll reply to the rest of this post when I have the time.

Yes but I'm just starting to scratch the own surface of my own skills and I'm just starting to learn how to apply tech skills to my own game...most people on this forum are obviously better than me, but the fact that I actually took the time to practice the tech skills and the fact that I do know how to L-Cancel gives me a little more credibility...I'm pretty sure that even when wavedash becomes muscle memory for me...I'll still think the command could be much easier without harming the depth.

I never argued that SSB has too much tech, I just said that it does a pretty terrible job at easing you towards the depth of the game. I understand that Skullgirls and MK9 have a huge tech skill ceiling, but there's this thing while playing those games that doesn't happen with things like Street Fighter, it's actually pretty hard to describe, but when you open Skullgirls/MK9 for the same time and you start playing, look once or twice at the command list and you feel like the game accepts that you're new and you actually feel like you could get better while having fun playing the game, the game's controls don't seem to fight againist you and the game doesn't overwhelm you with techs and the like, you start doing the commands and before you notice it, you're chaining your special attacks onto your combos and you actually feel like you're making progress, the extreme leniency of the commands on Skullgirls and the superbar on MK9 are probably part of the reason those games feel a little more intuitive and welcoming than most fighting games, but SFIV's weird attack physics, multidirectional attack inputs (8-directions) and the extreme difficulty of special attacks (Supers and Ultras) make the game feel overall unwelcoming and most times you feel like you're fighting the controllers as much as you're fighting on the game. I'm not saying that those games have lower skill ceilings than Street Fighter, it's just that Skullgirls and MK9 understand that you're still not good, SF's more like "Not an expert? Don't talk to me until you are one".

No, getting near the top will never be easy...you don't know how many times I died on Super Mario 3D World's Champion's Road, or how many times I fell off when getting to Rainbow Road the first time, or how many tries it took me to finally beat Master Hand and Crazy Hand on Intense...but those victories and that practice were achieved through the game progression...now, I understand that skill and practice progression might be a little harder to do on fighting games, but it's still not impossible! And I'd love wavedash to become a legit skill, because, on the case of the input not changing, at least the game would hold your hand a little through a tutorial or with the computers showing you what can be done using wavedash, or on the case of the input changing, wavedashing could be much simpler with the same results. I mean, wouldn't it have been better if, during Melee's development, instead of looking at wavedash and saying "Yeah that looks cool lets leave it like that!" Sakurai would've grabbed wavedash, used the output, and assigned it to a simpler input method?

I know it's human nature...but it's still awful to think that just because you went through hardships, everyone should :I Even when those hardships were compensating for something bad that was fixed later, but we're not gonna change the world from Smashboards, so yeh~ :v

I mean, I love doing things like watching Armada and Fly Amanita (I think those are my two favorite Smashers) to learn from them and the things they do on matches, and I usually go online when I want to learn more about a game's workings, one of the best examples being the enormous layer of depth on Animal Crossing and how you can make the most out of every hour of playtime, but some things on games should be explained to you within the game itself, and they should be presented well and looking fun to keep you hooked. Several videos showing Sakurai playing and doing various things like ~How to utilize shorthops~ ~How and when to wavedash~ would be optimal, especially because we'll be a LOOOOONG time without knowing frame data or exact hitboxes on this game, since the Wii U's a much tougher-to-hack machine than the Wii.

 

[Chiroz]

Yes, the decision to block is not the same as the input, however, your "press L+R+A+B+Z" to block is different from "press L+R+A+B+Z" to wave dash (had that been the actual input, which it is not). One allows you to block an opponents attack, which has been a fundamental part of all fighting games since before smash. HOWEVER, THE OTHER ALLOWS YOU TO SLIDE ACROSS THE STAGE AND INPUT ANY COMMAND (including block) WHICH IS A MASSIVE DIFFERENCE FROM BLOCKING. SO YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO TAKE MORE INPUTS TO PERFORM. NOT A WHOLE LOT LIKE L+R+A+B+Z but more like Y+DOWN (diagonally)+ R.



incorrect. Him an I understood the difference between strategy and input which is why we were differentiating between "reading online" and "inputing the commands". Not only that, our main argument centered around DIFFICULTY OF EXECUTION of commands and not whether an input is actually a decision or not, which either way require you to do both (decision and action) inorder to..... do absolutely anything in life. We are arguing about the ease of the actions needed to make these decisions which i have presented if you would take the time to read (and possibly re-read) what I wrote.



The answer is: BECAUSE PART OF THE INTRICACIES OF THE GAME ARE THE INPUTS. So you need to think of inputs in order to think and implement the intricacies you think of. What does thinking "damn, I need to do an uppercut into a special at this given moment" without first knowing "this motion is for upper cut and this motion is for special" in order to execute. If the motion for upercut and the motion for special where not granted to you and were not made possible, THEN YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THAT IN YOUR CONSIDERATION SET OF DECISIONS/INPUTS/INTRICACIES. THIS IS WHY WE DONT SHORYUKEN CANCEL IN MELEE BECAUSE MELEE DOES NOT OFFER US THAT OPTION AS INPUT--> ACTION FOR THE GAME (you'll have to use lucario in PM for that lmao... jk). Im sure you can not possibly disagree with this at the very least.

I will address both your posts with this one post

The thing is, I am not arguing about wavedashing or an specific technique. I am arguing that your argument as a whole fails.

D-idara is arguing difficulty of execution is something that isn't needed and you argue against him by saying that and I quote "if difficulty of execution did not exist we might as well let the game block or shield for us".

I was pointing out that the act of performing an action is a decision not an execution.

You also argued that if the game did not have difficulty of execution then you would be able to read online and win instantly, when in fact techs are not what allow you to win, strategy and outplaying your opponent is what does.

You literally stated that the hard part about the game (and the part you should be proud of) is learning how to perform this abilities and that it should stay so. I pointed out how implementing wavedashing is much harder than performing it, and now you agree, so when stating opinions try not to exaggerate your point to win an argument as you might come out wrong.

Also you keep arguing that this game doesn't have this tech or without this tech this wouldn't happen. Again, that is strategy, not input. You seem to think that making something easier to input means getting rid of it, it doesn't.

You can have wavedashing mapped to a single button input and have it do the exact same thing. How exactly does doing that harm the game? Give me one reason it makes the game worse.

Also LoL is not an extreme case. Most fighter games including SF have been making inputs easier in the past 5 years. They introduce new techs which are complicated to do, but nowhere near as complicated as it was before.

And also you weren't discussing whether wavedashing is an extreme case. You kept saying that removinng difficult inputs meant the game shouldn't be played anymore, and the arguments you gave to support said claim kept saying it was removing options or making the game play for us. Removing hard inputs doesn't mean removing a tech, it means making it easier to perform, which is why most of your arguments are flawed.



Also you seem to not understand what an exploit is. Exploit vs Core mechanic doesn't mean something is hard to execute or not. You do realize that combos in itself are exploits because they are "exploited" by the player. Chaining up throws, chaining grabs, chaining down tilts, foward tilts, doing down throw to foward air to foward smash, rinse and repeat, they are all exploits and yet they are all core mechanics too.

Yet all of those moves are as simplified as can be (you can't get any simpler than literally 1 button press), but in an actual match are incredibly hard to pull off. There is timing, tech chasing, reading your opponents DI, baiting and the mere act of chaining 5+ moves without making a mistake in any of those variables is incredibly hard in a competitive match. Yet all of those variables are strategic variables, there isn't a single input variable in those variables I mentioned (except maybe for timing if its a tight combo in the time department).

In conclusion, the fact that its an exploit or not doesn't have anything to do with difficulty of execution. The value of a skill shouldn't rely on how hard something is to perform but rather how hard something is to implement correctly.

 

[Big-Cat]

I never argued that SSB has too much tech, I just said that it does a pretty terrible job at easing you towards the depth of the game. I understand that Skullgirls and MK9 have a huge tech skill ceiling, but there's this thing while playing those games that doesn't happen with things like Street Fighter, it's actually pretty hard to describe, but when you open Skullgirls/MK9 for the same time and you start playing, look once or twice at the command list and you feel like the game accepts that you're new and you actually feel like you could get better while having fun playing the game, the game's controls don't seem to fight againist you and the game doesn't overwhelm you with techs and the like, you start doing the commands and before you notice it, you're chaining your special attacks onto your combos and you actually feel like you're making progress, the extreme leniency of the commands on Skullgirls and the superbar on MK9 are probably part of the reason those games feel a little more intuitive and welcoming than most fighting games, but SFIV's weird attack physics, multidirectional attack inputs (8-directions) and the extreme difficulty of special attacks (Supers and Ultras) make the game feel overall unwelcoming and most times you feel like you're fighting the controllers as much as you're fighting on the game. I'm not saying that those games have lower skill ceilings than Street Fighter, it's just that Skullgirls and MK9 understand that you're still not good, SF's more like "Not an expert? Don't talk to me until you are one".

Skullgirls and Street Figher, and most 2D fighters in general don't vary much when it comes to their inputs. I don't really get what you're saying when you say that SG and MK9 accepts you're new when you look at the movelist. If there's an immediate difference between those games and SF, it's that those games don't use links to the hard extent that SF4 does which I admit is freaking annoying. Juggles are so much easier in comparison. It also helps that Skullgirls attempts to directly address the learning curve in fighting games by providing as many tutorials as possible along with doing some nice things like making standing 360's doable along with making it clear which moves are command grabs.

And what multidirectional attacks are you talking about in SF?

FYI, I suggest the Learn As You Go approach when it comes to fighting games, or at least for you. Just play the game.

 

[D-idara]

Skullgirls and Street Figher, and most 2D fighters in general don't vary much when it comes to their inputs. I don't really get what you're saying when you say that SG and MK9 accepts you're new when you look at the movelist. If there's an immediate difference between those games and SF, it's that those games don't use links to the hard extent that SF4 does which I admit is freaking annoying. Juggles are so much easier in comparison. It also helps that Skullgirls attempts to directly address the learning curve in fighting games by providing as many tutorials as possible along with doing some nice things like making standing 360's doable along with making it clear which moves are command grabs.

And what multidirectional attacks are you talking about in SF?

FYI, I suggest the Learn As You Go approach when it comes to fighting games, or at least for you. Just play the game.

Almost all attack commands on Street Fighter are multidirectional, while most moves on Mortal Kombat are at most three directions and an attack button, on Street Fighter there's commands that you need to execute smoothly and seamlessly while twisting the control stick with diagonals, on things like Shoryuken, this gets extremely annoying and infuriating because the game often recognizes other moves or makes you do things you aren't even trying to do because the command has to be very precise, I've noticed that on Mortal Kombat, there's a much bigger room for error when doing the commands.

This doesn't make the game slower, or sloppier, because at first you maybe get it right with a little forgiveness from the game, but as you continue doing the command, you'll start to do the move faster and more precisely on your own, and naturally. This helps you learn the game's workings and mindgames as you go and the tech skill will come with just playing the game. Unfortunately, this can't be done with the wavedash command because the action entirely depends on how fast you do it.

I mean, good for people who have always played Street Fighter and the commands are so embedded onto their brain that they come off naturally...but that's just not my kind of game. The purpose of a game always will be to have fun, and when the game manages to ease you towards tech skill and almost makes it part of the natural progression of the game, then that's good design! I mean, what gives the right to a developer to say "Screw new players! They'll have to tough it out!"?

I'll never understand why fighting games use those kinds of commands in the first place, but some games make it way more bearable.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

L-Cancel is still stupid and redundant, having to press L everytime you land? Totally not tech barriers for the sake of tech barriers. It should be called L-Cancer because all it does is harm to the game.

And getting an advantage just because how to do a command is called bad design. The 'rewarding' aspect comes from playing well, there's nothing rewarding or good about the dated, etilist-magnet Street Fighter system, I sold my copy of SFIV a week after getting it.

And yes, Smash prides itself in simplicity. You're good because you're good, not because of muscle memory.

And I'd hardly consider two dudes getting handcramps on a badly-designed game one of the greatest moments in gaming history, but Street Fighter is a whole different story, it tries and tries to make the game harder and harder so tryhards can feel good about themselves.

What in the **** are you talking about? How in the world can you have a technical barrier for the sake of having them? First of all, that statement alone is ridiculous and doesn't exist, secondly, L canceling is not there just to be there; it has a function for its execution, to reduce the landing lag of an aerial attack by 1/2 of its frames. If There is a difference, however suddle it may be--in the execution of a move or function then it is not there for the sake of being there, it's there to alter the game play. you really have no idea what you are talking about. Can you even give me an example of a "technical barrier that exist for the sake of being a technical barrier"?

Smash doesn't pride itself in anything, it is a programmed inanimate object who's existence is existential to the hardware that can execute the necessary functions to replicate the programming; it's a ****ing game, not a person. What you meant to imply is that the 'premise' or the series is it's pride in simplicity, and even then you would still be wrong. The premise of the smash bros series was to provide an alternate outlet for fighting game enthusiast with a unique system that allows the game to be completely customizable above all else. You can play the game in any fashion you want. The execution of certain moves and attacks are simple at face value, but when combined offer a greater level of depth. It's the same as many other traditional fighting game; simple execution, but has barriers of depth that allow for a different paradigm of playing.

Having an advantage because you know how to do a command is stupid? lol ok, you sound real dumb, because thats how all games are made. When i'm playing Mario Bros. should I not have the advantage if I know how to run while my opponent only knows how to walk? Should i have the advantage if he doesn't know how to walk at all? So by your logic the game should just run for him and keep me in the lead because he doesn't know how to "do something"? That is ridiculous. That's like saying someone who has lived on a farm without a former education should be able to program laser guided missiles for the military. Forget the dude who knows who understands the necessary variables to allow the programming to function properly, he just knows the math for the sake of knowing it. This other guy should be good at it just because. You following me on how ridiculous this sounds? You aren't good because you are good; you are good because you know how to execute things and understand the intricacies of combat. If you want a game so you can be good just because then go play candy crush or some bull**** like that.

Street Fighter is a great game with a great community, and you literally do not understand any of it. It has shared the same methods of execution for decades while only introducing new universal mechanics to alter gameplay, and it really isn't hard if you just play the game. Street Fighter 4 if probably one of the most simple in the series since you can buffer most inputs and combos are super simple. Then again, you're just a hater. These "tryhards" play the game because they love it, they love the community and the thrill of competition, especially players like daigo who are very respected in the community. Contrary to your belief these people encourage competition and actively try to expand the community because they want to, so you have no right to talk ****, especially when you are a poser who wants to be on their level without committing to the craft. Like anything in life, you have to work hard to achieve it, and these players did just that. You have no right to criticize the intent of these players or call them try hards, especially when you can be considered to be such in anything. One could consider someone to be a tryhard in art if he tries to make detail sketches and emphasize on photo-realism instead of just drawing stick figures; it's the same ****.

You really cant expect anyone to take anything you say seriously, especially when the success of these games that you have a problem with speak for themselves. I just hope that you do not pursue a career in game design unless you're making an app or something that really doesn't matter. According to your philosophies on "good game design", it seems to be right up your ally.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Again, you seem to confuse strategy with inputting.

"If we begin giving these optimal options to players and justify it with "because the player is always going to want to do this" then we can justify removing the input for blocking or rolling and have the game block and/or roll when it is most optimal for us"

No, deciding when to block or roll is a strategic decision, it is NOT an input, it is a decision. Pressing L is the input, its what you have to do, it isn't the decision. If on the other hand, in order to block, you had to press L + R + A + B + Z, would that add anything to the game? No, it would not, there is no reason for the blocking input to be 5 buttons when it could just be one single button.

Most of your arguments are flawed because you seem to believe that complex input = strategy and most of your arguments in defense of complex inputs are actually arguments in defense of strategizing (which no one is arguing against anyways), but inputs and strategies are completely independent of each other, except for the fact that complex inputs hinder strategies for players who have not put out the time to learn said inputs. You have not actually given any arguments that help complex inputs except for "they should be there to give people who spend time doing it bragging rights", which is the same childish disposition D-idara had weeks ago.

Why should the game require you to learn an input before you can start thinking of how to actually learn the actual intricacies of the game itself? I love Melee and I love techs such as wavedash, the game would not be even close to the marvel it is without it, but the input is not the reason why I love wavedash. The reason I love wavedash is because of the options it adds and how it branches the possible strategies in the game, the input is just something I need to learn to reach that golden level of play. Removing said input doesn't harm the game in any way, it just hurts elitist egos.

After reading over what you just said, in contrary to my point of my previous statement I wanted to address what you said on unnecessary technical barriers.

Pressing all of those buttons to block is ridiculous, yes, but it doesn't seem to far fetched from what is imposed on traditional fighters. Roman Canceling in Guilty Gear is done after you do an attack (P + K + S), so the fluidity of the input doing an attack would be something similar to 236 + P > (Hit) > P + K + S. While it is somewhat tedious, what it offers as a result is a beneficial and mutual decisions since you are aware that doing so you lose out on meter. Every action you take costs something, even blocking, when the cost of blocking would be more options to counter attack or read the opponents approach. With things in fighting games like option select having to press a myriad of buttons can potentially reap benefits while still allowing players to do things simply with button mapping.

I view most of these tech barriers as options. While most players cannot execute P + K + S to roman cancel, fighting games allow you to map buttons where there is an option (Unless you are in an arcade scene) to map the input to one button so R1 on a controller could be P + K + S. Even though not as extreme there are options for doing things in smash that seem like necessary technical inputs. Why would I grab with L+A instead of just pressing Z? Why would I throw an item with L+A+Direction on the stick instead of just pressing Z+Direction on the stick? Well, it presents you with options. If you run at the opponent and press L+A to grab you are basically buffering out a shield before you grab, so if the opponent happens to do something like a dash attack you can punish him, while doing just a regular dash grab can punish you. Same applies to throwing the item with L + A + Direction on the stick, you can block a projectile and throw an item back, or in Brawl you can glide toss.

While somethings do seem ridiculous I do believe that there are other ways to remedy the issues instead of just eliminating them all together. Technical barriers in my opinion are a choice since you don't necessarily need to learn them to play the game, and in some cases you don't need to learn them all to be proficient.

 

[DontHate-]

[1/2]
This may very well be the longest post you have ever seen but oh well, here we go... Im going to try and break it down as simple as I possibly can so that you can see where you are completely wrong in some of your statements. This is going to get ridiculously over simplistic.

I will address both your posts with this one post

The thing is, I am not arguing about wavedashing or an specific technique. I am arguing that your argument as a whole fails.

Would you like me to quote you on how you were making an argument about wave dashing and specific techniques WHILE holding a position in the argument? Just read your previous posts. And no, my argument as a whole does not fail because you were not able to counter-argue my claims. You attempted to sum everything up and missed A LOT of points me or D-idara made. Not to mention, the points you are making now have had counter arguments presented to them that you seem to ignore.

D-idara is arguing difficulty of execution is something that isn't needed and you argue against him by saying that and I quote "if difficulty of execution did not exist we might as well let the game block or shield for us".

Nice try quoting me, but you failed at even copying and pasting just to support your argument, which is rather weak, man. This is a perfect example of you summing up one of my claims and, consequently, misunderstanding what I am saying. here is what I actually said:

"In a video game, everyone wants the most optimal options for all their decisions. It is the ability to perform them that has you playing the video game in the first place. If we begin giving these optimal options to players and justify it with "because the player is always going to want to do this" then we can justify removing the input for blocking or rolling and have the game block and/or roll when it is most optimal for us. That way, "we can focus more on the game"...."

I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE ON WHETHER OR NOT BLOCKING SHOULD BE REMOVED BASED ON DIFFICULTY or WHETHER ANYTHING SHOULD BE REMOVED BASED ON DIFFICULTY. I AM SATING THAT THE JUSTIFICATION for removing the tech based on the following claim:

"you always want to have less ending lag, so remove ending lag" presented by D-idara was incorrect.

The reason this particular argument being faulty is because we can use the same justification for removing inputs for block or roll when it is most optimal since "you always want the most optimal action for a given situations". Notice how I still leave room for difficulty in tech to be removed. Im just stating that this particular justification is not sufficient because it can be applied to so many of the areas of the game. If you want to counter argue this point (now that I explained it to you) then go right ahead, but you clearly misunderstood what was going on to begin with.

I was pointing out that the act of performing an action is a decision not an execution.

As much as I don't like embarrassing people, I have to do it on this one. My apologies for being an asshole for this.

Here is the definition of an action from dictionary .com:
1. the process or state of acting or of being active: The machine is not in action now.
2. something done or performed; act; deed.

Here is the definition of decision based on google (type in decision):
1. A conclusion or resolution reached after consideration

Here is the definition of performing based on google (type in performing)
1. carry out, accomplish, or fulfill (an action, task, or function).

I purposefully chose the definition for "decision" from google and not the one from dictionary .com because even though they mean the exact same thing, the one from dictionary .com might be a little too complicated for you to understand and might confuse you, but here it is anyway:

1. the act or process of deciding; determination, as of a question or doubt, by making a judgment:
2. the act of or need for making up one's mind:

Now before you go, "HURR DURRR, ACT IS IN THE DEFINITION THERE FOR IT''S PERFORMING AN ACTION",
I need to you understand the difference between the ACT of MAKING a DECISION, the ACT of PERFORMING/EXECUTING a DECISION using physical states, and the ACT OF PERFORMING A DECISION within the context for which we are discussing action and decision making. So to help us understand this a bit better, here is what you need to know:

I can make a decision using mental states without PERFORMING ANY physical states (now if you want to argue the mind body problem, physicalism, functionalism and the like, we can have a separate conversation about that). Now let us look back at your statement:

I was pointing out that the act of performing an action is a decision not an execution.

Im sure by now you can see why this is incorrect, right? If you still don't get it, it is because the "act of performing an action" IS NOT A DECISION. Refer to the "twin-world" argument made in philosophy where it is possible to perform actions without being conscious of making a decision (or even being conscious for that matter). AND EVEN IF... EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS PREVIOUS STATEMENT or find it far too complicated for this discussion, I can still make a DECISION without PERFORMING an ACTION. Therefore, performing in action IS not a decision (If you want to argue functionalism here and talk about what "is" actually is, go right ahead). Action is actually much closer to execution (it actually IS an execution to be exact. You must execute an act in order to perform said act. This statement seems pretty redundant but I feel like I have to state it to prevent you from coming up with an irrational reply)... BUT WAIT, EVEN IF... EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, an execution is the act of carrying something out which, by definition, is an action....so it is almost as if you are saying:

"I was pointing out that the act of performing an action is a decision not an action", which in and of itself is a contradiction...

There are so many fallacies with your statement that I don't know why I even attempted to take a stab at it. And this is what you were "Pointing out"??? If this was your goal, do I really need to continue? I will regardless because you still might not agree with the idea of you misunderstanding some points in the discussion between me and D-idara (which he, by the way, made an excellent point for his argument on his last post that I really, really liked and pointed out).

Now that we got that out of the way, let's continue (this might need to be broken up into two posts)[/quote]

 

[DontHate-]

[2/2] Cont.

"You also argued that if the game did not have difficulty of execution then you would be able to read online and win instantly, when in fact techs are not what allow you to win, strategy and outplaying your opponent is what does."

Read what I wrote above, not wasting my time with this one. Oh, and once again, you sum up an argument and misinterpret what was being said. But while you read my previous posts (which, im sure you probably WON'T do), remember that you NEED technical execution of a combination of buttons in order to carry out your strategy (no matter what it is) in this video game.

You literally stated that the hard part about the game (and the part you should be proud of) is learning how to perform this abilities and that it should stay so. I pointed out how implementing wavedashing is much harder than performing it, and now you agree, so when stating opinions try not to exaggerate your point to win an argument as you might come out wrong.

Look at that last sentence and see everything I just wrote above... No one here is exaggerating. Making extreme cases, which all three of us have been doing are not necessarily exaggerations. I will post the definition of both if you need me to.
Now as for the argument you presented here, yes, the hard part about the game and a "part" for which I enjoy is learning how to perform the tech. If ALL people did not enjoy it in some way, shape, or form, this entire discussion would probably not exist since we would all agree that we do not enjoy performing such complicated tech. I, on the other hand, enjoy it because the time and effort to finally execute it is rewarding. An example would be the trials in a fighting game like SF. MOST OF THOSE COMBOS ARE NOT OPTIMAL IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION. A LOT OF THEM ARE JUST FOR FLASH, YET ,PEOPLE ENJOY EXECUTING THEM BASED ON THE DIFFICULTY OF THE BUTTON COMBINATIONS. Just like doing flashy combos that might not net you the most damage. You can most certainly argue against this point that I just presented. I literally gave you a free one here. An argument such as this one can be a thread in and of itself.

Also you keep arguing that this game doesn't have this tech or without this tech this wouldn't happen. Again, that is strategy, not input. You seem to think that making something easier to input means getting rid of it, it doesn't.

That Last sentence was good, however, you are still incorrect about my implications. Again, we are discussing the DIFFICULTY and the IMPLEMENTATION OF TECH BASED ON THE DIFFICULTY. Making something easier does not get rid of it, it gets rid of the DIFFICULTY, by definition. Again, the difficulty of executing something can make some people frustrated and others extremely happy.

You can have wavedashing mapped to a single button input and have it do the exact same thing. How exactly does doing that harm the game? Give me one reason it makes the game worse.

YOU ARE.......... ABSOLUTELY CORRECT HERE!.....You can map the wave dashing to one botton (mind you, you would still need to input a direction, which would make the action 2 inputs in total (Y+direction), which is also only 1 less input then the current form of wave dashing...However, It is easier none the less so I accept the point you made here as valid.... Valid does not mean sound... Im not going to explain the difference between valid and sound.) it does not harm the game as much as it harms people being content with overcoming difficulty in the game. Whether or not you want to call this "pride" we can save for another day.

Also LoL is not an extreme case. Most fighter games including SF have been making inputs easier in the past 5 years. They introduce new techs which are complicated to do, but nowhere near as complicated as it was before.

This came with A LOT OF BACKLASH. you know how many people were upset with the removal of parrying? But this is besides the point... Even then, the game still kept a lot of difficult mechanics (especially timing of difficult combos) so that players can feel good after accomplishing the goal. After all, playing the game is to feel good, right? I hope so.

And also you weren't discussing whether wavedashing is an extreme case. You kept saying that removinng difficult inputs meant the game shouldn't be played anymore, and the arguments you gave to support said claim kept saying it was removing options or making the game play for us. Removing hard inputs doesn't mean removing a tech, it means making it easier to perform, which is why most of your arguments are flawed.

Nope! When did I say that removing difficult inputs that the game shouldn't be played anymore? This again, is your misunderstanding of my counterargument for faulty justification behind removing input based on giving players the most optimal results. If this is too confusing, refer back to the bolded post about justification. Also, to add, not everyone wants to play a game where the tech is easy to perform. There are games that balance it out perfectly, an example would be MVC3. The "magic series" was freaking genius. It allowed entry level players to play the game and perform combos that would have been difficult to perform by entry level players but also allowed high level play by having the SAME BUTTONS be timed to perform much more difficult combos that entry level players would not be able to perform if they do not take the time to learn it. Think of this as wave dashing in one button (with directional input so Y+direction on analog), but instead , you can wave dash even farther if you time it a certain way (does not have to be insanely hard), which opens up the ability to perform combos that would have not otherwise been possible. I know this is not the best analogy but I really think we can agree on this. It is kind of like the difference between wavelanding but pressing diagonal down (to the left) and doing the same input but pushing more to the left or right (which would make you go much further).

Also you seem to not understand what an exploit is. Exploit vs Core mechanic doesn't mean something is hard to execute or not. You do realize that combos in itself are exploits because they are "exploited" by the player. Chaining up throws, chaining grabs, chaining down tilts, foward tilts, doing down throw to foward air to foward smash, rinse and repeat, they are all exploits and yet they are all core mechanics too.

What are you saying here ??????? C'mon, man gimme a break..... An exploit in a video game is using the full recourses available to perform something. So yes, combos are, technically speaking, exploitation, but we don't think of exploitation in this sense for a video game. An example of exploitation in a game (the way most of us mean it) is an action that the developers did not intend to be allowed within the confines of the physics in the game but still using all intentionally available resources to perform the action. The physics in melee were, by definition, exploited when we discovered wavedashing.

Yet all of those moves are as simplified as can be (you can't get any simpler than literally 1 button press), but in an actual match are incredibly hard to pull off. There is timing, tech chasing, reading your opponents DI, baiting and the mere act of chaining 5+ moves without making a mistake in any of those variables is incredibly hard in a competitive match. Yet all of those variables are strategic variables, there isn't a single input variable in those variables I mentioned (except maybe for timing if its a tight combo in the time department).

In conclusion, the fact that its an exploit or not doesn't have anything to do with difficulty of execution. The value of a skill shouldn't rely on how hard something is to perform but rather how hard something is to implement correctly.

First, everything requires timing. if you press A and then B too fast in any game, the B move might not come out. There are zillions of examples of this in all fighting games. Second, read the post I made about MVC3, because I think we can agree on What I mentioned about the 2 input (button + direction) wave dash that can allow both simple and more complex actions.

Well, Im done. I really don't feel like going on.

 

[Manty]

I will address both your posts with this one post

The thing is, I am not arguing about wavedashing or an specific technique. I am arguing that your argument as a whole fails.

D-idara is arguing difficulty of execution is something that isn't needed and you argue against him by saying that and I quote "if difficulty of execution did not exist we might as well let the game block or shield for us".

I was pointing out that the act of performing an action is a decision not an execution.

You also argued that if the game did not have difficulty of execution then you would be able to read online and win instantly, when in fact techs are not what allow you to win, strategy and outplaying your opponent is what does.

You literally stated that the hard part about the game (and the part you should be proud of) is learning how to perform this abilities and that it should stay so. I pointed out how implementing wavedashing is much harder than performing it, and now you agree, so when stating opinions try not to exaggerate your point to win an argument as you might come out wrong.

Also you keep arguing that this game doesn't have this tech or without this tech this wouldn't happen. Again, that is strategy, not input. You seem to think that making something easier to input means getting rid of it, it doesn't.

You can have wavedashing mapped to a single button input and have it do the exact same thing. How exactly does doing that harm the game? Give me one reason it makes the game worse.

Also LoL is not an extreme case. Most fighter games including SF have been making inputs easier in the past 5 years. They introduce new techs which are complicated to do, but nowhere near as complicated as it was before.

And also you weren't discussing whether wavedashing is an extreme case. You kept saying that removinng difficult inputs meant the game shouldn't be played anymore, and the arguments you gave to support said claim kept saying it was removing options or making the game play for us. Removing hard inputs doesn't mean removing a tech, it means making it easier to perform, which is why most of your arguments are flawed.



Also you seem to not understand what an exploit is. Exploit vs Core mechanic doesn't mean something is hard to execute or not. You do realize that combos in itself are exploits because they are "exploited" by the player. Chaining up throws, chaining grabs, chaining down tilts, foward tilts, doing down throw to foward air to foward smash, rinse and repeat, they are all exploits and yet they are all core mechanics too.

Yet all of those moves are as simplified as can be (you can't get any simpler than literally 1 button press), but in an actual match are incredibly hard to pull off. There is timing, tech chasing, reading your opponents DI, baiting and the mere act of chaining 5+ moves without making a mistake in any of those variables is incredibly hard in a competitive match. Yet all of those variables are strategic variables, there isn't a single input variable in those variables I mentioned (except maybe for timing if its a tight combo in the time department).

In conclusion, the fact that its an exploit or not doesn't have anything to do with difficulty of execution. The value of a skill shouldn't rely on how hard something is to perform but rather how hard something is to implement correctly.

He might not have used the best examples to support his argument, but I think he does ultimately have a point.

If wave dashing is something that you absolutely must know how to use to be able to compete then it might be a problem. That's where the "official" game mechanic vs exploit part comes in. If it were officially implemented along with other basic mechanics then the game could convey it to you directly and you could learn about it naturally. As it stands now though, It doesn't make sense for something like wave dashing to be essential to the game.

How difficult it is to actually do is something else entirely. Just because something can be made easier, doesn't always mean that it should be. Again though, wave dashing is a different case considering how fundamental it is and what it does. Some people think it's not really hard at all and it's fine as it is, but it wouldn't be a detriment to the game to make it easier. Ultimately, if Sakurai decided to bring it back it would be up to him to decide if the input is too difficult or not.

"Execution barriers are bad, add nothing, and shouldn't exist" isn't a good enough justification for making it easier though. It's silly to think it's possible to completely rid a game of execution barriers without dumbing it down. The higher you climb the more likely you are to encounter them. The Fox/Falco vs MK comparison was good for that. All 3 are very good, but Fox/Falco are also notorious for being hard to use. In a way they're like Zero.

UMvC3 is already more simple than past games LMH system, dedicated launcher button, dial-a-combo), but regardless of that it still has execution barriers. Zero is good at converting off of stray hits and he can easily kill in 1 combo, but he's not easy to use. Imagine how much worse it would be if his lightning loops were made stupid easy and Zero players never dropped them.

There's nothing strategic about doing a combo, once you land that first hit you want to squeeze out as much damage as possible to get closer and closer to wining. Long max damage combos like that are purely execution barriers that rely on memory and timing, but they're appropriate. It balances Zero out by making you have to put forth the effort to get the most out of him, instead of effortlessly destroying anybody that uses a worse character. An execution barrier doesn't always need strategic value to be relevant to a game.

 

[guedes the brawler]

I think L-cancelling is kinda necessary.

i mean, automatic 50% lag reduction would make casual play pretty broken (not to mention single player things). But, think about it. Try to do Mario's Forward Air IRL.

Sure, you can do the haymaker, but can you land correctly? If you mess up you could trip or break something... this is from where i think the idea came. And i kinda agree with it...



But if that justification is true, i see no reason not to change the input to down or even jump

 

[Muster]

I think L-cancelling is kinda necessary.

i mean, automatic 50% lag reduction would make casual play pretty broken (not to mention single player things). But, think about it. Try to do Mario's Forward Air IRL.

Sure, you can do the haymaker, but can you land correctly? If you mess up you could trip or break something... this is from where i think the idea came. And i kinda agree with it...



But if that justification is true, i see no reason not to change the input to down or even jump

I believe this was Sakurai's reasoning as well. IIrc Z cancelling was referred to as a "smooth landing" in the online guide for ssb64, so i guess it's just a brace for landing kind of thing.

 

[mimgrim]

I don't even......

*Backs away slowly*

I think L-cancelling is kinda necessary.

i mean, automatic 50% lag reduction would make casual play pretty broken (not to mention single player things). But, think about it. Try to do Mario's Forward Air IRL.

Sure, you can do the haymaker, but can you land correctly? If you mess up you could trip or break something... this is from where i think the idea came. And i kinda agree with it...



But if that justification is true, i see no reason not to change the input to down or even jump

L-cancel can be made a whole lot better. In it's current implementation it is too free. It makes aerials too safe to throw out. Throw our random aerial and L-cancel and don't get punished.

That's really my biggest gripe with L-cancel. It should be implemented in a way so that it fits into a risk VS reward scenario. If your aerial hits you can L-cancel it so that you are rewarded for getting the hit in and can possibly follow up with something else or lead into something else. Now if you don't make contact? You can't L-cancel. This means you can get punished for arbitrarily throwing out an aerial.

Disclaimer; the "I don't even" wasn't specifically targeted towards you. But rather all that other crap that happened on this page.

 

[LancerStaff]

He might not have used the best examples to support his argument, but I think he does ultimately have a point.

If wave dashing is something that you absolutely must know how to use to be able to compete then it might be a problem. That's where the "official" game mechanic vs exploit part comes in. If it were officially implemented along with other basic mechanics then the game could convey it to you directly and you could learn about it naturally. As it stands now though, It doesn't make sense for something like wave dashing to be essential to the game.

How difficult it is to actually do is something else entirely. Just because something can be made easier, doesn't always mean that it should be. Again though, wave dashing is a different case considering how fundamental it is and what it does. Some people think it's not really hard at all and it's fine as it is, but it wouldn't be a detriment to the game to make it easier. Ultimately, if Sakurai decided to bring it back it would be up to him to decide if the input is too difficult or not.

"Execution barriers are bad, add nothing, and shouldn't exist" isn't a good enough justification for making it easier though. It's silly to think it's possible to completely rid a game of execution barriers without dumbing it down. The higher you climb the more likely you are to encounter them. The Fox/Falco vs MK comparison was good for that. All 3 are very good, but Fox/Falco are also notorious for being hard to use. In a way they're like Zero.

UMvC3 is already more simple than past games LMH system, dedicated launcher button, dial-a-combo), but regardless of that it still has execution barriers. Zero is good at converting off of stray hits and he can easily kill in 1 combo, but he's not easy to use. Imagine how much worse it would be if his lightning loops were made stupid easy and Zero players never dropped them.

There's nothing strategic about doing a combo, once you land that first hit you want to squeeze out as much damage as possible to get closer and closer to wining. Long max damage combos like that are purely execution barriers that rely on memory and timing, but they're appropriate. It balances Zero out by making you have to put forth the effort to get the most out of him, instead of effortlessly destroying anybody that uses a worse character. An execution barrier doesn't always need strategic value to be relevant to a game.

With Zero there, it's life or death depending on if you do it right and is incredibly hard to do. L-canceling is such a stupid easy thing to begin with that anybody can get it right and there's no decision whatsoever. What if you had to press R again to drop your shield? There's a tiny fragment of more skill required. Sound like a good mechanic to you?

 

[JediLink]

That's the thing with L-cancelling. It's just a "nothing" mechanic. There's no reason not to do it, but at the same time, it's not even that hard to do in the first place. There's nothing that's so bad about it that it absolutely has to be removed, but there's also nothing so great about it that it absolutely has to stay. The game would be 99.9% the same with or without it.

 

[Manty]

With Zero there, it's life or death depending on if you do it right and is incredibly hard to do. L-canceling is such a stupid easy thing to begin with that anybody can get it right and there's no decision whatsoever. What if you had to press R again to drop your shield? There's a tiny fragment of more skill required. Sound like a good mechanic to you?

I never brought up L-canceling, and that shield example entirely misses the point of what I said. I never made an argument for or against L-canceling. I argued against the "execution barriers are bad and pointless" reasoning people try to use because it's flawed.

L-canceling is similar to wave dashing in that it's a basic technique you need to use to be able to compete, but it doesn't have a balance to it. Since you can L-cancel freely it speeds up the pace of the game, but at the same time that makes it something you must do just to keep up with everyone else. People often say it shouldn't be needed because it adds no strategical value, but removing the input and decreasing lag wouldn't change that, you'd just get the benefit without actually having to do anything. At that point the question is do you actually want it to require decision making, or do you only care about the speed boost it provides? The problem lies in how the mechanic itself is implemented, not necessarily that an input is required to do it.

Cancel mechanics like that are typically tied to a meter system in more traditional fighting games, but obviously smash bros doesn't work like that. Meter is an extra resource that gives you various options, but it's typically up to you to decide when to use it, and what to use it for. When it comes to smash bros L-cancel is the only option, it doesn't have to compete with anything. I don't have any examples in a smash bros context, but I think something like RCs vs FRCs (Guilty Gear) might work.

 

[guedes the brawler]

I don't even......

*Backs away slowly*



L-cancel can be made a whole lot better. In it's current implementation it is too free. It makes aerials too safe to throw out. Throw our random aerial and L-cancel and don't get punished.

That's really my biggest gripe with L-cancel. It should be implemented in a way so that it fits into a risk VS reward scenario. If your aerial hits you can L-cancel it so that you are rewarded for getting the hit in and can possibly follow up with something else or lead into something else. Now if you don't make contact? You can't L-cancel. This means you can get punished for arbitrarily throwing out an aerial.

Disclaimer; the "I don't even" wasn't specifically targeted towards you. But rather all that other crap that happened on this page.

Yes, it's problematic in a lot of ways. It's sad that Sakurai will most likey never use it again instead of trying to make it work properly.


Though i wonder how Melee would've been if it had 100% Lag reduction like in 64... oh god.

 

[Priap0s]

I think L-cancelling is kinda necessary.

i mean, automatic 50% lag reduction would make casual play pretty broken (not to mention single player things).

Why is that?

 

[D-idara]

[1/2]"In a video game, everyone wants the most optimal options for all their decisions. It is the ability to perform them that has you playing the video game in the first place. If we begin giving these optimal options to players and justify it with "because the player is always going to want to do this" then we can justify removing the input for blocking or rolling and have the game block and/or roll when it is most optimal for us. That way, "we can focus more on the game"...."

I AM NOT TAKING A SIDE ON WHETHER OR NOT BLOCKING SHOULD BE REMOVED BASED ON DIFFICULTY or WHETHER ANYTHING SHOULD BE REMOVED BASED ON DIFFICULTY. I AM SATING THAT THE JUSTIFICATION for removing the tech based on the following claim:

"you always want to have less ending lag, so remove ending lag" presented by D-idara was incorrect.

The reason this particular argument being faulty is because we can use the same justification for removing inputs for block or roll when it is most optimal since "you always want the most optimal action for a given situations". Notice how I still leave room for difficulty in tech to be removed. Im just stating that this particular justification is not sufficient because it can be applied to so many of the areas of the game. If you want to counter argue this point (now that I explained it to you) then go right ahead, but you clearly misunderstood what was going on to begin with.

I think I already explained my statement on an earlier post...you always want to L-Cancel because you always want to have less landing lag, but you don't want the game to shield or roll for you...because you've got options there, when someone throws an attack at you, Smash gives you like 6 different ways to dodge that attack and punish or stay clear of danger, and the game's not going to decide which one's better for you in that particular situation, you do. L-Cancel doesn't offer any tactical advantage or the ability to choose, you L-Cancel because you've overcompensating for the game's fault, and that's something that should obviously be adressed...I mean, it sounds like extreme madness to TRANSFER A GAME'S FAULTS to a mod that's supposed to be an improvement, even more to a new, official game on the franchise, right? (I'm looking at you PMBR)

That's the thing with L-cancelling. It's just a "nothing" mechanic. There's no reason not to do it, but at the same time, it's not even that hard to do in the first place. There's nothing that's so bad about it that it absolutely has to be removed, but there's also nothing so great about it that it absolutely has to stay. The game would be 99.9% the same with or without it.

Making the game easier to play also counts as a way of speeding it up when done right.

I mean, automatic 50% lag reduction would make casual play pretty broken (not to mention single player things). But, think about it. Try to do Mario's Forward Air IRL.

I kinda read this as "I don't want casual players to have more fun if they don't practice" but I personally think the most balanced approach to L-Cancelling would be to reduce the landing lag of moves drastically and just make it automatic (Or make it not exist), this would kill two birds with a stone, it'd make the pace of the game much faster, and it'd also get rid of another input barrier that does nothing but harm to the game, no matter how small that harm might be. Also, why would casual play be broken? If everyone can do it, then the field evens out.

 

[guedes the brawler]

I kinda read this as "I don't want casual players to have more fun if they don't practice" but I personally think the most balanced approach to L-Cancelling would be to reduce the landing lag of moves drastically and just make it automatic (Or make it not exist), this would kill two birds with a stone, it'd make the pace of the game much faster, and it'd also get rid of another input barrier that does nothing but harm to the game, no matter how small that harm might be. Also, why would casual play be broken? If everyone can do it, then the field evens out.

I think it will make the game far too fast if everything is cancelled from the get-go (i know i wouldn't have liked smash much when i began if it was this fast), not to mention it will change the balance of the aerials. I am pretty sure sakurai just put Z/L-cancelling in the games but he didn't balance the game around a 100% success rate of cancels, so slower moves would need tweaks and such.

I dunno, maybe it could work out in the end but i have my doubts. we'd need to actually have that to find out, and we know it won't happen.

 

[NFTsmasher]

I don't even......

*Backs away slowly*



L-cancel can be made a whole lot better. In it's current implementation it is too free. It makes aerials too safe to throw out. Throw our random aerial and L-cancel and don't get punished.

That's really my biggest gripe with L-cancel. It should be implemented in a way so that it fits into a risk VS reward scenario. If your aerial hits you can L-cancel it so that you are rewarded for getting the hit in and can possibly follow up with something else or lead into something else. Now if you don't make contact? You can't L-cancel. This means you can get punished for arbitrarily throwing out an aerial.

Disclaimer; the "I don't even" wasn't specifically targeted towards you. But rather all that other crap that happened on this page.

However, if you connect with an aerial against a shielded opponent, then that will delay how soon you need to L-cancel, possibly throwing off your timing if you are not careful.

 

[NFTsmasher]

Examples from Starcraft Broodwar:

Tech Skill: Having to accurately box select specific units to control them.

Tech Barrier: You can only select up to 12 units at a time. This can become problematic as your total army size approaches max, or you have many many units that are cheap in supply (e.g. zerglings).

 

[Priap0s]

I think it will make the game far too fast if everything is cancelled from the get-go (i know i wouldn't have liked smash much when i began if it was this fast), not to mention it will change the balance of the aerials. I am pretty sure sakurai just put Z/L-cancelling in the games but he didn't balance the game around a 100% success rate of cancels, so slower moves would need tweaks and such.

But wouldn't it be weird if landing lag was cut but Sakurai (and team) would still balance the game around non-cut landing lag? That makes no sense. If he where to cut landing lag the balance would ofcourse have to go from there.

You might be right about the speed thing for newcomers but honestly, melees speed in general was pretty fast. This game doesnt look to be as fast so I think this could have been the thought process for melee. For smash4 I think it is a non issue. If they feel it is, give Smash some Mario Kart modes. Like the equivalent of 50cc/100cc/150cc.

 

[LancerStaff]

But wouldn't it be weird if landing lag was cut but Sakurai (and team) would still balance the game around non-cut landing lag? That makes no sense. If he where to cut landing lag the balance would ofcourse have to go from there.

You might be right about the speed thing for newcomers but honestly, melees speed in general was pretty fast. This game doesnt look to be as fast so I think this could have been the thought process for melee. For smash4 I think it is a non issue. If they feel it is, give Smash some Mario Kart modes. Like the equivalent of 50cc/100cc/150cc.

SSB's gameplay wouldn't simply scale to different speeds, you'd have to rebalance the game for all three. I doubt that'll ever happen.

 

[Droß]

SSB's gameplay wouldn't simply scale to different speeds, you'd have to rebalance the game for all three. I doubt that'll ever happen.

Not really. With proper coding one can easily make frame delays, percentages, and other variables scale to the mode you're playing. The problem doesn't lie in the ability for the game to be balanced at each mode, which is absolute, but rather with the fact that there's now 3 similar game modes and casual players would rather have just one.

It is unlikely that Nintendo would actually implement different speed modes that are actually balanced around frame-based lag maneuvers and not just clones of lightning mode.

 

[LancerStaff]

Not really. With proper coding one can easily make frame delays, percentages, and other variables scale to the mode you're playing. The problem doesn't lie in the ability for the game to be balanced at each mode, which is absolute, but rather with the fact that there's now 3 similar game modes and casual players would rather have just one.

It is unlikely that Nintendo would actually implement different speed modes that are actually balanced around frame-based lag maneuvers and not just clones of lightning mode.

So you'd still have to go out of the way to make it work.

 

[Priap0s]

SSB's gameplay wouldn't simply scale to different speeds, you'd have to rebalance the game for all three. I doubt that'll ever happen.

Oh, I was merely using that as an example (thought it was a better example than just the standard "easy/medium/hard"-modes games use to have). Two modes would most likely be more than enough. Personally I don't realy feel it needs anything like that all, but could be a nice treat for playing with younger kids and new gamers. I feel like every smash game so far has been greatly enjoyed by casual gamers and I am 99% certain melee would have been too, even if L-cancel was automatic (meaning: melee was also enjoyed by casual and would probably have been just as enjoyed by them if L-canceling was automatic).

 

[Pazzo.]

Wow, you guys have quite the discussion going on here! Excuse my n00bness, but can someone present the two sides as they currently stand?

 

[LancerStaff]

Oh, I was merely using that as an example (thought it was a better example than just the standard "easy/medium/hard"-modes games use to have). Two modes would most likely be more than enough. Personally I don't realy feel it needs anything like that all, but could be a nice treat for playing with younger kids and new gamers. I feel like every smash game so far has been greatly enjoyed by casual gamers and I am 99% certain melee would have been too even if L-cancel was automatic

There was an easy mode in Melee, single button mode. And what do ya mean by too even?

 

[Priap0s]

Wow, you guys have quite the discussion going on here! Excuse my n00bness, but can someone present the two sides as they currently stand?

I dont know man.
Its just a new version of a discussion that has been had a thousand times. Currently we are on the:
"L-canceling is a dumb mechanic, it should be automatic" vs "L-canceling seperates pros from joes. You can mind game with shielding to mess up L-cancels" vs "Video games is about being good at doing hard inputs and similar stuff, thats what being good at videogames is" vs "L-canceling offers no depth at all, you always want to L-cancel"-discussion.

 

[Droß]

So you'd still have to go out of the way to make it work.

Yes, which was your original point. I misread