The Official 64BR Recommended Ruleset

[Nintendude]

You're begging the question by saying that tornadoes are good, since you fail to address how they affect different characters in different ways.

I don't have much time so I'll respond to this briefly. Take Jigglypuff for example. She's more adversely affected by the randomness of tornadoes since she dies really early to them. Additionally, she is nearly incapable of f-throwing an opponent into a tornado. Thus, removing tornadoes is biased in favor of Jigglypuff.

 

[Olikus]

Sorry, but removing stage hazards to make up for the player's noobness is not a good excuse. Seriously. The tornado in Hyrule is pretty easy to detect when it spawns.

This statement is so funny I dont know where to begin. If you only think noobs get caught by tornadoes ill give you a tip. Watch more high level 64 matches on youtube.

 

[Fish641]

Doublepost, sorry.

 

[Fish641]

I don't have much time so I'll respond to this briefly. Take Jigglypuff for example. She's more adversely affected by the randomness of tornadoes since she dies really early to them. Additionally, she is nearly incapable of f-throwing an opponent into a tornado. Thus, removing tornadoes is biased in favor of Jigglypuff.

So if we were to remove tornadoes, it would be a buff to a character in the low tiers. For a competitive game, we want to achieve as much balance as possible. Therefore, removing tornadoes would improve the competitiveness of the game.

It gets into a slippery slope because you can't just turn on FD and hope for the best. The stage is a bit small, blastzones are a bit odd and the ledges are weird. So where do you draw the line on where to change the blast zones and other variables? That's where it gets into a slippery slope. These are game changing variables and quite frankly, you guys aren't looking at the big picture here. If people want to add GS stages into the game, then they need to make changes so that they are viable in competitive play.
[...]
Not if they're bad like they are right now.

So the argument that you're making is against the specific maps. That's an entirely different thing than talking about "mods." I have no qualms about banning a map based on its own merits (or lack thereof), but that is a separate issue about getting rid of a stage because it's GS-based.

But [random events] add to the game, though.

You have a conclusion with no premises, and an invalid one at that. A valid one would look something like this:
We play Smash as a competitive game. Competitive games depend on skill being the deciding factor between who wins and who loses. Therefore other factors besides skill should not affect the outcome of a game. Since the only thing skill-related to luck is how you deal with an unlucky scenario, luck is inherently unskillful. Therefore as luck is unskillful and syllogistically noncompetitive, it should be removed as much as possible from the game.

 

[ballin4life]

It gets into a slippery slope because you can't just turn on FD and hope for the best. The stage is a bit small, blastzones are a bit odd and the ledges are weird. So where do you draw the line on where to change the blast zones and other variables? That's where it gets into a slippery slope. These are game changing variables and quite frankly, you guys aren't looking at the big picture here. If people want to add GS stages into the game, then they need to make changes so that they are viable in competitive play.

I'm all for hacking that does not change gameplay, though.



Not if they're bad like they are right now.

That's an entirely different argument. You can say "well those stages suck so they shouldn't be legal", but that's totally besides the point.

Well, no, because the game lets you turn off the items aka competitive DESIGN. The game doesn't let you turn off tornadoes, rising lava, or the wind blowing.

Ok, so it is about what the game allows. So if the game didn't allow you to turn off items, then you would support playing with items?

Well, what are we talking about here? Are we talking about in a competitive setting or a casual setting? It's true the CS has a lot of mods but if you look closely, a lot of them are very gimmicky and are just for fun. There's so many mods out there such as mods that "balance" the game (with differing levels in 'balancing') and it just gets so unorganized. Also, let's not forget about the endless amount of aimbots and other cheating mods

CounterStrike is a mod. Later Valve hired the people that made the mod and repackaged the mod as a boxed game to make money.

Let's take a look at how many Brawl mods there are.

• Project M
  
• Troll Brawl
  
• Brawl-
  
• Brawl+
  
• Balanced Brawl
  
• SSSB "Overdrive"
  
• Super Smash Bros. Turbo
  
• Super Moon Brawl
  
• Unstoppbrawl
  
• Fixed Brawl
  
• Brawl 64

Well, ****. Which one do I play? Brawl+ has stuff that I like but Brawl- as well.

Huh, there's a huge list of items I can turn on and off. How do I know which ones to turn off?

If there were to be hacking in 64, it needs to be very centralized and it's something that everybody agrees on. Otherwise, it just becomes a bunch of mods that some people use but others may not. That's where sticking to what we have becomes ideal.

This is true, but the same thing applies to items. You need a centralized rule set to deal with items, or it becomes a bunch of different game types where some people use pokeballs and others don't.


My only argument is that everything depends on whether it can be implemented (and I'm not sure whether that's really possible). But there's no other dividing line.

 

[Battlecow]

The only bad thing about BF/FD is the ledges, and Congo (a neutral, although you BR ****holes only made it a neutral because otherwise you can't stage strike) has the same edges. IF we reccomend or pseudo-recommend or don't not recommend the wind-frees, then there is absolutely no reason whatsoever in hell not to include them in there. I can see why you might not want to allow any Gsharking, though, simply because of implementation problems and a disconnect between casual and competitive play.

Also, who's in charge of this? Does AA just get to say "eh, I wrote this ruleset and I get to add to it, screw all y'all"?

 

[asianaussie]

Have you played extensively on either FD or Battlefield, or are you theorycrafting about them?

Considering removing the bit about FD/BF just for Battlecow.

 

[Battlecow]

I've definitely played extensively on Battlefield. Only thing even remotely weird is that Ness's recovery takes a bit of a hit, but it's ****ing Ness, so it doesn't hurt him any more than Peach's hurts link/samus.

My experience with FD is limited to maybe 2-3 hours of falcon dittos/some pika v. kirby, but I think that if it had any glaring harshnesses, I'd have noticed them.

 

[Nintendude]

So if we were to remove tornadoes, it would be a buff to a character in the low tiers. For a competitive game, we want to achieve as much balance as possible. Therefore, removing tornadoes would improve the competitiveness of the game.

I'm arguing that removing tornadoes is biased towards certain characters more than others, and Jiggly is just one example. You're strawmanning. Whether or not it improves the competitiveness of the game is very irrelevant. You can concoct all sorts of hacks that arguably make the game more "competitive" but the fact is we are competing in SSB64, not hacked SSB64.

 

[Glöwworm]

This statement is so funny I dont know where to begin. If you only think noobs get caught by tornadoes ill give you a tip. Watch more high level 64 matches on youtube.

I know all about high level 64 matches and no, I don't think only noobs get caught in the tornadoes. By the way, I hope you know the distinction between players getting caught in the tornado because of their opponent and getting sweeped off by the tornado itself. The latter is pretty easy to avoid imo.

So if we were to remove tornadoes, it would be a buff to a character in the low tiers. For a competitive game, we want to achieve as much balance as possible. Therefore, removing tornadoes would improve the competitiveness of the game.

No, I don't think it's a good idea to remove tornadoes because a character would benefit from it. That's like banning Saffron because Ness' recovery is 10x even worse there.

So the argument that you're making is against the specific maps. That's an entirely different thing than talking about "mods." I have no qualms about banning a map based on its own merits (or lack thereof), but that is a separate issue about getting rid of a stage because it's GS-based.

No, I am not saying that we should not play on those stages because they are GS-based (if that's what you're saying). I am simply stating that if anyone wants the GS stages in, they need to be fixed so that they are competitively viable.

You have a conclusion with no premises, and an invalid one at that. A valid one would look something like this:
We play Smash as a competitive game. Competitive games depend on skill being the deciding factor between who wins and who loses. Therefore other factors besides skill should not affect the outcome of a game. Since the only thing skill-related to luck is how you deal with an unlucky scenario, luck is inherently unskillful. Therefore as luck is unskillful and syllogistically noncompetitive, it should be removed as much as possible from the game.

Sorry dude, but you have me confused. I don't know where you got that idea that that was my conclusion. I'm not sure what ballin4life meant by "random events" but I thought of tornadoes, rising lava, and other variables (but NOT items). I was just simply stating that while they do not make the game, they add to the game to a certain extent. It's like saying the textures on the game do not make the game but they add to the game. Just a loose statement.

That's an entirely different argument. You can say "well those stages suck so they shouldn't be legal", but that's totally besides the point.

No, I'm just saying fix them if you want them to be legal lol. If people really want to play on those stages then it's fine with me. I'll just make use of the situation.

Ok, so it is about what the game allows. So if the game didn't allow you to turn off items, then you would support playing with items?

Yup.

CounterStrike is a mod. Later Valve hired the people that made the mod and repackaged the mod as a boxed game to make money.

I know that. However, Counter-Strike was a very centralized mod that was generally accepted by everyone. That's why it got to where it's at. If Smash was as open as CS, I would not like Smash one bit. It'd basically be Brawl+ all over again except it's forever.

Huh, there's a huge list of items I can turn on and off. How do I know which ones to turn off?

I only made that post because I thought you were talking about something else entirely about Counter-Strike. Either way, that statement you made there is invalid because if we're playing in a competitive setting with an established rule set, all items would be turned off so there shouldn't be any confusion about which items to turn on. Also, items =/= and entire Smash game lol.

This is true, but the same thing applies to items. You need a centralized rule set to deal with items, or it becomes a bunch of different game types where some people use pokeballs and others don't.

Sarcasm? Anyways, my answer to this is pretty much the above post.

My only argument is that everything depends on whether it can be implemented (and I'm not sure whether that's really possible). But there's no other dividing line.

Yup, at this point it's kind of theorycrafting but some things are possible right now. If only those Emudigital guys would give more info about their findings.


Anyways, I pretty much just go with the flow. I am not one to discuss about rule sets, character balance, and the like. I deal with what's handed to me. If people play on GS stages more, I'll play on them more. I do have my own opinions but I don't really expect people to act upon them so I don't say anything.

Also, if you don't want to deal with tornadoes, play on Dream Land; a much better stage than Hyrule

 

[Fish641]

I'm arguing that removing tornadoes is biased towards certain characters more than others, and Jiggly is just one example. You're strawmanning. Whether or not it improves the competitiveness of the game is very irrelevant. You can concoct all sorts of hacks that arguably make the game more "competitive" but the fact is we are competing in SSB64, not hacked SSB64.

I'm not strawmanning in the least. You set up an argument, and I addressed exactly your argument. If you want to bring up arguments that I can beat, that's fine. But don't try to back out of them afterwards crying strawman.
But the competitiveness of the game is a serious concern, considering the fact that we're playing it, well, competitively. Fostering the most fair and enjoyable competition is exactly what this ruleset aims to do. The goal is not, despite what you are seemingly arguing, to play the most traditional version of Smash 64. Otherwise, why not keep items on Normal and team attack off? Those are the preset values, and removing random and unskillful events like tornadoes is simply changing those values, much like disabling items is. Trying to individually define a method of play you don't like in order to invalidate it isn't, of itself, a valid form of criticism. In the same vein, I don't define item-less Smash as "Funless Smash" or playing without handicaps as "Unfair Smash."
And despite all of this, you still haven't given any reason to not use GS codes. Ballin already said that implementation is his only qualm, which I agree on. But instead of going down this road, (and correct me if I'm mistaken,) you seem to implying an argument based on some sort of ethical, purist point of view. You're skirting the line between a fallacious appeal to tradition and a naturalistic fallacy. Instead of trying to use loaded words to evoke some sense of pathos, would you explain why you think the use of GS codes are inherently wrong?

No, I don't think it's a good idea to remove tornadoes because a character would benefit from it. That's like banning Saffron because Ness' recovery is 10x even worse there.

I wasn't arguing for that. Instead, I was dispelling the idea that the extremely slight balance change that would occur by removing tornadoes would be a negative effect on the game.

 

[Nintendude]

I'm not strawmanning in the least. You set up an argument, and I addressed exactly your argument. If you want to bring up arguments that I can beat, that's fine. But don't try to back out of them afterwards crying strawman.

But you see, character balance wasn't actually an argument I was making. I have nothing else to say here.

But the competitiveness of the game is a serious concern, considering the fact that we're playing it, well, competitively. Fostering the most fair and enjoyable competition is exactly what this ruleset aims to do. The goal is not, despite what you are seemingly arguing, to play the most traditional version of Smash 64. Otherwise, why not keep items on Normal and team attack off? Those are the preset values, and removing random and unskillful events like tornadoes is simply changing those values, much like disabling items is. Trying to individually define a method of play you don't like in order to invalidate it isn't, of itself, a valid form of criticism. In the same vein, I don't define item-less Smash as "Funless Smash" or playing without handicaps as "Unfair Smash."

I don't understand how anyone can possibly lump changing in-game options and hacking the game in the same category. There's a difference between changing how the game is played and actually changing the game. Once you hack the game and change something you are no longer playing SSB; you are playing hacked SSB.

And despite all of this, you still haven't given any reason to not use GS codes. Ballin already said that implementation is his only qualm, which I agree on.

How many times do I have to bring up the slippery slope? If we start remove tornadoes and wind, why stop there? Why not nerf all the top tiers and pump all the bottom tiers? Why not add depth by allowing players to crouch during a dash? As Star King said earlier, this is opening up a big can of worms.

Also, it has been brought up that the codes can be a players' choice thing, but this is bad. If players can choose no-tornadoes via agreement, then you are holding a tournament for 2 DIFFERENT GAMES: SSB64 and SSB64 with no tornadoes. No, they are not the same thing, because I've already established that no-tornadoes does not affect the entire cast in a balanced manner.

I wasn't arguing for that. Instead, I was dispelling the idea that the extremely slight balance change that would occur by removing tornadoes would be a negative effect on the game.

See, this goes back to the strawman again. That's not the argument I was presenting. I could not care less whether or not hacking makes the game more competitive or not. The point is the same as above - you are no longer playing the same game once you hack it, and character balance is one manifestation of that.

 

[ballin4life]

How many times do I have to bring up the slippery slope? If we start remove tornadoes and wind, why stop there? Why not nerf all the top tiers and pump all the bottom tiers? Why not add depth by allowing players to crouch during a dash? As Star King said earlier, this is opening up a big can of worms.

The reason to stop there is that it would be really hard to implement a nerf of the top tiers and a buff of the bottom tiers.

Also, it has been brought up that the codes can be a players' choice thing, but this is bad. If players can choose no-tornadoes via agreement, then you are holding a tournament for 2 DIFFERENT GAMES: SSB64 and SSB64 with no tornadoes. No, they are not the same thing, because I've already established that no-tornadoes does not affect the entire cast in a balanced manner.

I agree with this in the sense that you shouldn't really be able to agree to turn on items either.

 

[Nintendude]

The reason to stop there is that it would be really hard to implement a nerf of the top tiers and a buff of the bottom tiers.

The difficulty in implementation is not relevant though, and is subject to much variability. They can be really minor changes too. Like let's say we had a simple code that lets Samus use her midair jump after using down-B. Using the argument that we should strive to make the game more competitive, we should support the use of this code as well, but that is continuing down the slippery slope.

 

[ballin4life]

If that's easy to implement I really don't see the problem.

 

[WindMajor]

Twinkie from the brawl section also had an interesting way to put it....

If you can rationalize playing a modded version of a game, you might as well be able to rationalize being able to play hide and seek for the finals of genesis 2 instead of smash64.

Radical as that maybe no matter how many people agree to the change, cheating is still cheating...and that's all this is.

I really like how this caught on. Back in the other thread, people got thrown off by the extremes, and disregarded my argument.

Nintendude1198 already explained how hacking SSB changes the game completely. If you guys were to adopt a modded game as a standard, then you would be effectively killing SSB by replacing it with a different game. Since you guys would be playing a different game, the similarities between SSB and hacked SSB wouldn't matter, cause no matter how similar they may be, they would always be different. You wouldn't be playing SSB anymore, and if that's the case, you might as well be playing something extreme like Mario Party or hide and seek.

 

[The Star King]

I'm not going to remove it just because some people got into an argument over it. That's just dumb. The ruleset isn't here to spread love, it's to give a reasonably comprehensive outline of tournament procedure.

Of course it shouldn't be removed just because it causes arguments - it should be removed because it causes arguments AND it's pointless to include. Again, these are recommendations for TOs, so just saying it's up to the TO is pointless when everything is up to the TO already.

The Melee ruleset doesn't even MENTION wobbling IIRC, even though there's a major split amongst TOs in policy regarding wobbling and a lot of people expect the MBR to comment.

 

[Olikus]

People get waaaaaay to obsessed with "real" and "fake" ssb. No matter how you look at it, the game isnt changed by removing the tornadoes. Because then its just the same as playing on hyrule before the tornado spawns. You might as well say you play modded smash before the nadoes spawn then.

Im aware of that you need to mod the game to get the tornadoes turned off, but it doesnt make the game different than it is before the nadoes comes on the stage. It just removes a huge element of luck like with the items.

 

[Battlecow]

I feel like stages aren't an integral part of the game or something. Like, banning them/adding more is cool by me, even though I'd get queasy at the thought of giving samus that midair jump post-DownB

 

[felipe_9595]

People get waaaaaay to obsessed with "real" and "fake" ssb. No matter how you look at it, the game isnt changed by removing the tornadoes. Because then its just the same as playing on hyrule before the tornado spawns. You might as well say you play modded smash before the nadoes spawn then.

Im aware of that you need to mod the game to get the tornadoes turned off, but it doesnt make the game different than it is before the nadoes comes on the stage. It just removes a huge element of luck like with the items.

This ^^

Also, i ignored all the balin's post. I cant have respect for someone who says L Cancel add a unnecesary button press and doesnt require skills.

 

[Fish641]

But you see, character balance wasn't actually an argument I was making. I have nothing else to say here.
[...]I've already established that no-tornadoes does not affect the entire cast in a balanced manner.
[...]character balance is one manifestation of that.

Whenever I bring up that you have made no convincing argument regarding the affect on character balance that removing tornadoes would bring, you say that character balance wasn't your argument. But you act as if you addressed this issue appropriately in the exact post that you denied doing so. Did you forget, or are you, once again, begging the question?

I don't understand how anyone can possibly lump changing in-game options and hacking the game in the same category. There's a difference between changing how the game is played and actually changing the game. Once you hack the game and change something you are no longer playing SSB; you are playing hacked SSB.
[...]If players can choose no-tornadoes via agreement, then you are holding a tournament for 2 DIFFERENT GAMES: SSB64 and SSB64 with no tornadoes.

They both change the game in similar ways, and they both are present on the game cartridge. In fact, since this shaky point of nomenclature keeps getting brought up, why not address it in full? Say we switched the names of hide-and-seek and Smash. Does that affect the quality of the game? I'd play the one that's a fighting game with these 12 characters in it. However, you seem obsessed with what the name of the game is. In fact, you already earlier argued FOR items on, under the circumstances that it was the original Smash 64. This blatant disregard of gameplay in favor of nomenclature suggests to me that your enjoyment from the game has nothing to do with how it plays, but instead is entirely derived from what it's called. So if Smash 64 originally involved running around and avoiding one person trying to find you, would you play that instead of a hide-and-seek game involving pitting Nintendo characters against each other?

How many times do I have to bring up the slippery slope? If we start remove tornadoes and wind, why stop there? Why not nerf all the top tiers and pump all the bottom tiers? Why not add depth by allowing players to crouch during a dash? As Star King said earlier, this is opening up a big can of worms.
[...]The difficulty in implementation is not relevant though, and is subject to much variability. They can be really minor changes too. Like let's say we had a simple code that lets Samus use her midair jump after using down-B. Using the argument that we should strive to make the game more competitive, we should support the use of this code as well, but that is continuing down the slippery slope.

You can keep bringing up your slippery slope when you show how it's not, well, a slippery slope. If you remember, I already stated that a line could be drawn at what's available on the cartridge and what's not. This provides a stopping point, so that we don't get too far into game design, which I'm guessing close to, if not zero of us have true experience in. If it's on the cartridge, let us discuss it.

Nintendude1198 already explained how hacking SSB changes the game completely.

No, he didn't. He simply stated that it did, without any valid explanation.

If you guys were to adopt a modded game as a standard, then you would be effectively killing SSB by replacing it with a different game. Since you guys would be playing a different game, the similarities between SSB and hacked SSB wouldn't matter, cause no matter how similar they may be, they would always be different. You wouldn't be playing SSB anymore, and if that's the case, you might as well be playing something extreme like Mario Party or hide and seek.

Since this was addressed in part by me and in part by Olikus, I'd rather not respond to it in full (though I would if you asked me to). For the "they would always be different" line of reasoning, please refer to Olikus' post, and for the nomenclature part, refer up in this post.

Also, i ignored all the balin's post. I cant have respect for someone who says L Cancel add a unnecesary button press and doesnt require skills.

Wow, we're just disregarding everything and going straight into ad hominem now, aren't we?

 

[felipe_9595]

Pretty much. I respected ballin until i saw some of his posts on the Brawl 64 poll (The poll was about was better. L Cancel or Aerial Landing Reduction)

 

[TANK64]

yea gonna have to say Nintendude is right... ****

But I am a extremest/purist/console player, so what do I know...

 

[Fish641]

Pretty much. I respected ballin until i saw some of his posts on the Brawl 64 poll (The poll was about was better. L Cancel or Aerial Landing Reduction)

Well you can disregard them, but I hope you don't believe that invalidates his arguments in any way.

 

[felipe_9595]

I havent read it, i cant say anything about it. I am just saying i will not read it.

 

[ballin4life]

I really like how this caught on. Back in the other thread, people got thrown off by the extremes, and disregarded my argument.

Nintendude1198 already explained how hacking SSB changes the game completely. If you guys were to adopt a modded game as a standard, then you would be effectively killing SSB by replacing it with a different game. Since you guys would be playing a different game, the similarities between SSB and hacked SSB wouldn't matter, cause no matter how similar they may be, they would always be different. You wouldn't be playing SSB anymore, and if that's the case, you might as well be playing something extreme like Mario Party or hide and seek.

ok so you wouldn't be playing ssb any more. You'd be playing a game that is similar but ever so slightly better. I don't see the problem.

Also let's say I buy a new SSB game and want to hold a tournament. Should I be able to use gameshark to turn item switch on?

This ^^

Also, i ignored all the balin's post. I cant have respect for someone who says L Cancel add a unnecesary button press and doesnt require skills.

Pretty much. I respected ballin until i saw some of his posts on the Brawl 64 poll (The poll was about was better. L Cancel or Aerial Landing Reduction)

LOL. If you don't understand why "L cancel" is dumb that's your problem. It's pretty ironic though that you're coming in here talking about how someone's opinion is worthless because of their past posts.

 

[felipe_9595]

Then in your opinion, Platform Drop uairs, or DJC are dumb because they mean an unnecesary Input, so we should allow macros, no???

And i am not saying your opinion is worthless, i am saying I will not read your post because you dissapointed me, thats all.

 

[SuPeRbOoM]

L cancelling is useless, it's just an unnecessary tech skill barrier that you have to pass before you start to become better at the game.

 

[felipe_9595]

L cancelling is useless, it's just an unnecessary tech skill barrier that you have to pass before you start to become better at the game.

Thats the points. Noobs dont Z Cancel.

Okay, then everyone, lets sue Macros :D!!! In that way everyone will be able to Platform Drop Uair, because its an unnecesary barrier too. Same for Multishine, Or DJC :D!!! Also, lets create a button that makes you come back to the stage inmediately, because recovering is unnecesary barrier.

You guys are hilarious. Thats why our backroom sucks.

 

[NovaSmash]

i actually agree with felipe, if u think z cancel is a barrier then so are all the other techniques and u might as well just macro them to make everyones life easier. If u cant master z canceling or think its too hard then that just sucks for u, straight up.

 

[Olikus]

ok so you wouldn't be playing ssb any more. You'd be playing a game that is similar but ever so slightly better. I don't see the problem.

This was the sentence I was looking for. Ballins got it. Even though Im okay If we just drop the nadoes not that more stages would hurt the game in anyway^^

 

[stylisland]

I don't really want to get into playing hack ssb vs ssb but I don't think playing with mods should be put in the recommended rules. I agree that the rules should be up to the TO but I don't think you should put GScodes in the recommended rules for new TO's to go off of.

 

[ballin4life]

Then in your opinion, Platform Drop uairs, or DJC are dumb because they mean an unnecesary Input, so we should allow macros, no???

And i am not saying your opinion is worthless, i am saying I will not read your post because you dissapointed me, thats all.

because you disagreed with me on some past issue you think my opinion in this thread is worthless.

Thats the points. Noobs dont Z Cancel.

Okay, then everyone, lets sue Macros :D!!! In that way everyone will be able to Platform Drop Uair, because its an unnecesary barrier too. Same for Multishine, Or DJC :D!!! Also, lets create a button that makes you come back to the stage inmediately, because recovering is unnecesary barrier.

You guys are hilarious. Thats why our backroom sucks.

platform drop uairs/djc aren't unnecessary inputs. sure, if there were a way to make those inputs slightly easier I'd be for it, but there kinda isn't. The controls make sense the way they are. You press down to platform drop and press jump twice to DJC.

Z canceling is more akin to forcing you to press up up down up down every time you want to platform drop. It just makes no sense.

Also, bringing up macros is just confusing the issue. We're again talking about the DESIGNER'S perspective. The game should not have been designed with z cancels, and likewise the game should not be designed so that balance only comes out of the fact that you can't use macros (i.e. human limitations on tech skill).

In fact, what you're saying basically is that we should add more things that require insane tech skill to do. Why not make it so that short hops have a 1 frame window? Why not make it so that you have to do a half circle upward to do an uair, instead of just holding up? Why not make it so that you have to press ABAA instead of just A to do your moves?

i actually agree with felipe, if u think z cancel is a barrier then so are all the other techniques and u might as well just macro them to make everyones life easier. If u cant master z canceling or think its too hard then that just sucks for u, straight up.

Well the thing is that z canceling has vastly decreased the size of the competitive community. I have friends that simply can't play on my level because they don't know how to z cancel, and they aren't willing to practice z cancels. See, they can't even really realize how much cool stuff is in the game because you can only do all that stuff once you spend a ton of time just practicing z cancels.

 

[ciaza]

Surely no one can tell me that if the original SSSB did not have item switch to turn off items, then a mod was released to add item switch to the game making it exactly as we know it now, that everyone would shun the mod and claim we should not use it?

That said, I still want hazards to remain for purely arbitrary reasons. I think that even if people's reasons are deemed silly by some, they should still be respected. I don't believe this whole deal is wroth splitting the community over.

 

[Glöwworm]

Well the thing is that z canceling has vastly decreased the size of the competitive community. I have friends that simply can't play on my level because they don't know how to z cancel, and they aren't willing to practice z cancels. See, they can't even really realize how much cool stuff is in the game because you can only do all that stuff once you spend a ton of time just practicing z cancels.

I lol'd. If they aren't willing to put any effort into learning how to Z-cancel (as easy as it is), then they in no way in hell would put effort into learning other things after getting past the z-cancelling.

 

[ballin4life]

I lol'd. If they aren't willing to put any effort into learning how to Z-cancel (as easy as it is), then they in no way in hell would put effort into learning other things after getting past the z-cancelling.

You can lol all you want, but it's true.

You can't even understand what's going on in the game until you put in a week of practicing just z cancels.

It's the equivalent of having to level your character to 70 (is it 80 now? idk) in WoW before you can have a legitimate PvP match. WoW PvP might be the greatest thing in the world, but I'll never know because I'm not willing to put in the time leveling my character for something that MIGHT be good.


Of course some people love z canceling because they can beat up on anyone that can't z cancel, so they get to think that they are good.


And anyway, for some characters there isn't that much more that requires tedious/repetitive tech skill practice beyond z canceling. Most of being good is related to strategy, edgeguarding, recovery, combos, etc. which are more fun and less repetitive than tech skill practice.

 

[Battlecow]

Ballin', you're right about z-canceling in a very technical sense, but it has NOT greatly decreased the competitive community's size. Everyone likes the game before they learn to Z-cancel, and you'd **** your friends up even if they could Z-cancel. It's not like Z-canceling suddenly turns smash from a ****ty game into a fantastic one. Odds are, if they can't be bothered to learn Z-canceling, they can't be bothered to learn how to combo well anyways.

 

[Glöwworm]

You can lol all you want, but it's true.

You can't even understand what's going on in the game until you put in a week of practicing just z cancels.

It's the equivalent of having to level your character to 70 (is it 80 now? idk) in WoW before you can have a legitimate PvP match. WoW PvP might be the greatest thing in the world, but I'll never know because I'm not willing to put in the time leveling my character for something that MIGHT be good.


Of course some people love z canceling because they can beat up on anyone that can't z cancel, so they get to think that they are good.


And anyway, for some characters there isn't that much more that requires tedious/repetitive tech skill practice beyond z canceling. Most of being good is related to strategy, edgeguarding, recovery, combos, etc. which are more fun and less repetitive than tech skill practice.

I can play Brawl where you aren't required to press a button after an aerial move and I can still get wrecked by other players. You can't say others have an advantage because everybody can't L-cancel. And there's plenty of stuff I have to learn to actually have a chance of doing good with other players that know what they are doing.

And nope, there's plenty of tech skill related things that they need to know. For example, when I started playing, I had trouble pivoting. I would run and then turn around. If they play Fox, they need to learn how to shine cancel, and SHDL. Sure, it's not required, but they're at a disadvantage if they can't do it.

Spoiler

Why don't we set up button(s) that do this automatically?

What about Directional Influence? You won't learn (and be good at it) that by night. There's other things as well.

I seriously think that if your friends aren't willing to put in the time and effort to learn how to Z-cancel, then they most likely won't put effort later on. I'm not talking about going in traning mode and practice Z-cancelling all day but occasionally doing it in matches to get the hang of it.

 

[ballin4life]

Ballin', you're right about z-canceling in a very technical sense, but it has NOT greatly decreased the competitive community's size. Everyone likes the game before they learn to Z-cancel, and you'd **** your friends up even if they could Z-cancel. It's not like Z-canceling suddenly turns smash from a ****ty game into a fantastic one. Odds are, if they can't be bothered to learn Z-canceling, they can't be bothered to learn how to combo well anyways.

It turns smash from a game with a very gradual learning curve to a very steep learning curve.

The way it happens basically: I play a friend and own him with combos and stuff. They ask "how do you do that?" My response "well first you have to practice hitting Z EVERY TIME YOU HIT THE GROUND WHILE DOING AN AIR MOVE". Then they're like "uh yeah let's go back to playing 200% with items"

and yes I really do talk in ALL CAPS.

Maybe if they saw how cool the game is once you can z cancel, they'd be willing to learn more (especially since the things you learn post z canceling are usually a lot more fun to practice)

I can play Brawl where you aren't required to press a button after an aerial move and I can still get wrecked by other players. You can't say others have an advantage because everybody can't L-cancel. And there's plenty of stuff I have to learn to actually have a chance of doing good with other players that know what they are doing.

And nope, there's plenty of tech skill related things that they need to know. For example, when I started playing, I had trouble pivoting. I would run and then turn around. If they play Fox, they need to learn how to shine cancel, and SHDL. Sure, it's not required, but they're at a disadvantage if they can't do it.

Spoiler

Why don't we set up button(s) that do this automatically?

What about Directional Influence? You won't learn (and be good at it) that by night. There's other things as well.

I seriously think that if your friends aren't willing to put in the time and effort to learn how to Z-cancel, then they most likely won't put effort later on. I'm not talking about going in traning mode and practice Z-cancelling all day but occasionally doing it in matches to get the hang of it.

Don't get me wrong, there are tons of other tech skill things in the game. It's just that none of them are as essential as z canceling. It's not even close. And for some characters (Falcon, Kirby) you don't really need any other tech skill to be really good (Fox and Yoshi are probably not examples here). Plus the other things you need to do tend to be more fun than learning to hit Z with a certain timing EVERY TIME you hit the ground while doing an aerial.

Also my other point was that some people like Z cancels because it allows them to beat other people that don't Z cancel. So once you know about this secret technique you automatically become better than your friends. Obviously there is much more to the game once everyone can Z cancel.

As for making SHDL and shine cancel easier - sure that would be nice. But there isn't really a good way to do it. It wouldn't make sense with the rest of the control scheme to map "shine cancel" to top-C or anything (what would it be for other characters?). For Z canceling there is an obvious way to eliminate a completely unnecessary button press.

 

[Battlecow]

It turns smash from a game with a very gradual learning curve to a very steep learning curve.

The way it happens basically: I play a friend and own him with combos and stuff. They ask "how do you do that?" My response "well first you have to practice hitting Z EVERY TIME YOU HIT THE GROUND WHILE DOING AN AIR MOVE". Then they're like "uh yeah let's go back to playing 200% with items"

and yes I really do talk in ALL CAPS.

Maybe if they saw how cool the game is once you can z cancel, they'd be willing to learn more (especially since the things you learn post z canceling are usually a lot more fun to practice)

No, see, I get what you're saying, but it's not true. Z-canceling is bad, but it's a really minor issue because:

1. The game is fun for noobs even without it

2. It's not hard to learn (this coming from me)

3. You can be OK without it