The Sm4sh Debate Thread

[arcticfox8]

Ever had a point you want to defend? Ever seen opinions you don't agree with? This thread is for you.

Note:This thread is for debates, not flamewars. If you cross that line you're out.

Present your points and prepare to defend them. Don't post if you aren't prepared for mass amounts of salt.

As always, keep it civil and respectful. I can't wait to see what you have to say!

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Hmm... Oddly enough we have an entire debate forum open for just this purpose.

http://smashboards.com/forums/debate-hall.23/

But, this is more close to smash than over there lol

 

[QQQQQQQ7777777]

If you guys want, I can tell you how to always win a debate, but you shouldn't use these tips on your friends because it will probably psychologically torture them.

 

[Saito]

Hmm... Oddly enough we have an entire debate forum open for just this purpose.

http://smashboards.com/forums/debate-hall.23/

But, this is more close to smash than over there lol

I think the purpose of this thread is to share essentially unpopular opinions, and popular opinions.

But being allowed to debate about them.

And I don't know this just because I happen to share a conversation with Arctic.
Nope.
Not at all.
>_>
<_<

If you guys want, I can tell you how to always win a debate, but you shouldn't use these tips on your friends because it will probably psychologically torture them.

I get the feeling it will be riddled with logical fallacies.

 

[QQQQQQQ7777777]

And I don't know this just because I happen to share a conversation with Arctic.
Nope.
Not at all.
>_>
<_<

Damn it Saito, this is why I shouldn't have invited you I MEAN WHAT NOTHING TO SEE HERE LOLOLOLOL IGNORE THE FACT THAT THE SAME EIGHT PEOPLE ALWAYS LIKE THE OTHER NINE'S POSTS!!!

I get the feeling it will be riddled with logical fallacies.

Actually it's based around making your opponent rethink his stance instead of an endless argument that goes nowhere because neither is willing to consider what the other is saying because they are both sounding like morons.

 

[Saito]

Actually it's based around making your opponent rethink his stance instead of an endless argument that goes nowhere because neither is willing to consider what the other is saying because they are both sounding like morons.

So essentially, your strategy is to make the opponent question his own beliefs.

I mean, that's a legitimate strategy, but we literally have a counter to that strategy that exists to this day, and is actually the reason why there is so much hostility on this site.

 

[QQQQQQQ7777777]

So essentially, your strategy is to make the opponent question his own beliefs.

I mean, that's a legitimate strategy, but we literally have a counter to that strategy that exists to this day, and is actually the reason why there is so much hostility on this site.

You can be right and still sound like a moron, nobody wants to listen to the opinions of a moron.

 

[Saito]

To get the topic started...

As said by many people, a game that is easy to learn but difficult to master is one of the most rewarding experiences.
Melee is a game that had that in spades and that's why so many people loved it. When people who are actually informed say they want a game like melee, they really mean they want a game that has a ton of depth.

Why is this a bad thing that they want smash 4 to be like melee? I assume it's because of what essentially is a mistranslation of what the player wants.

 

[QQQQQQQ7777777]

To get the topic started...

As said by many people, a game that is easy to learn but difficult to master is one of the most rewarding experiences.
Melee is a game that had that in spades and that's why so many people loved it. When people who are actually informed say they want a game like melee, they really mean they want a game that has a ton of depth.

Why is this a bad thing that they want smash 4 to be like melee? I assume it's because of what essentially is a mistranslation of what the player wants.

I completely agree with you Saito, but I think it's because people want to play on an even playing ground. Say you weren't good at the game and your friend was and it irritated you that you kept losing to him. He could hold back, but then it would just irritate you that he was purposefully letting you win. This is the reason my friend doesn't like playing Project M with me, and the reason I've heard from others.

A game can be easy to pick up, but once someone has gone into the deep end and mastered it, suddenly there is a wall between the friend who is good at the game and the friend who wants to play casually.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

Debate in of itself is fun. More often than not I find it always ends up in stalemate. I never see any point in trying to win a debate. Winning a debate seems to imply you got someone over to your way of thinking which to me is pretty pointless. If everyone thought the same way and agreed on everything it would be pretty boring. At very least I think its helpful to take some topic and analyze it too much by attempting to counter certain points or better explain it. In this way, both sides become more educated on the topic as a whole. Regardless if your stance has actually changed any lol

In terms of an actual smash topic none really come to mind for me. The only one I would tease around with might be the view point people have about those who play a better game. From my own experience, I have met many people who believe you have to play smash by predicting or making guesses. Which from my experience and simple game plans this is not the way to do it. Much of the game is slow enough for you to react too with enough practice. Yes, some things cannot be, but a majority of the game you can react too. Plus, it makes sense to never rely upon guess work. By doing guess work you gamble and its in the better interest to avoid guess work and do what you can almost always guarantee to work.

To get the topic started...

As said by many people, a game that is easy to learn but difficult to master is one of the most rewarding experiences.
Melee is a game that had that in spades and that's why so many people loved it. When people who are actually informed say they want a game like melee, they really mean they want a game that has a ton of depth.

Why is this a bad thing that they want smash 4 to be like melee? I assume it's because of what essentially is a mistranslation of what the player wants.

Perhaps the best explanation comes from the type of thing Brawl introduced. From my perspective, Melee and Brawl are different games entirely and therefore appeal to different crowds. By that very nature you cannot develop something that will appease both crowds entirely. Actually, if you follow one of the economic ideas that there are infinite wants out there it doesn't seem so surprising that there will always those that view the idea of "ssb4 to be more like melee" to be a bad idea.

Someone somewhere will be unhappy lol

 

[Saito]

I completely agree with you Saito, but I think it's because people want to play on an even playing ground. Say you weren't good at the game and your friend was and it irritated you that you kept losing to him. He could hold back, but then it would just irritate you that he was purposefully letting you win. This is the reason my friend doesn't like playing Project M with me, and the reason I've heard from others.

A game can be easy to pick up, but once someone has gone into the deep end and mastered it, suddenly there is a wall between the friend who is good at the game and the friend who wants to play casually.

This is a very valid view.

I know this from very first hand experience as I have lots of friends that are not as good as me at smash brothers.

I'm a bit biased since I have a very different nature. If I lose, I make it a point to get better so I can do good, or even beat my opponents. I don't care if they have had years of experience over me, I will make it a point to get that good so I can have a chance to beat them. As long as the game is fun to play, I will always keep challenging the people that beat me.

But I've seen a lot of people not want to play with me because of the skill gap.

However, I don't really like people's stance like that. If you want to win more, then you have to put in more work. This is true even for more casual games. You have to learn the intricacies of each game in order to gain an edge. If you don't try to learn, then how can you expect to get better?

Even in brawl, which at a casual level, does not have much depth I was still able to outplay them just in general. They still felt the same way about that.

I can name off plenty of other games that this has happened as well, games that have far less depth than Super Smash Brothers.

Spoiler

Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm series
Naruto Clash of Ninja Revolution series
Dragon Ball Z budokai series
Dragon Ball Z budokai Tenkaichi series
Mario Kart series (Till 7 came out)
Tekken series
Marvel Vs Capcom Series
M.U.G.E.N
And others

If someone doesn't try to get better, then they shouldn't expect to win. If they do try to get better and they still don't win, then they should try harder. I know it's difficult to try harder, but trust me, it feels so rewarding to see your hard work pay off in the end.

 

[QQQQQQQ7777777]

This is a very valid view.

I know this from very first hand experience as I have lots of friends that are not as good as me at smash brothers.

I'm a bit biased since I have a very different nature. If I lose, I make it a point to get better so I can do good, or even beat my opponents. I don't care if they have had years of experience over me, I will make it a point to get that good so I can have a chance to beat them. As long as the game is fun to play, I will always keep challenging the people that beat me.

But I've seen a lot of people not want to play with me because of the skill gap.

However, I don't really like people's stance like that. If you want to win more, then you have to put in more work. This is true even for more casual games. You have to learn the intricacies of each game in order to gain an edge. If you don't try to learn, then how can you expect to get better?

Even in brawl, which at a casual level, does not have much depth I was still able to outplay them just in general. They still felt the same way about that.

I can name off plenty of other games that this has happened as well, games that have far less depth than Super Smash Brothers.

Spoiler

Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm series
Naruto Clash of Ninja Revolution series
Dragon Ball Z budokai series
Dragon Ball Z budokai Tenkaichi series
Mario Kart series (Till 7 came out)
Tekken series
Marvel Vs Capcom Series
M.U.G.E.N
And others

If someone doesn't try to get better, then they shouldn't expect to win. If they do try to get better and they still don't win, then they should try harder. I know it's difficult to try harder, but trust me, it feels so rewarding to see your hard work pay off in the end.

I was actually talking to my friend about this earlier this week and he basically said that the difference between a fighting game and Melee is that in Melee there are several near-frame perfect techniques that makes what has been a slowly ascending incline to that point suddenly have a giant mountain come out of the ground with M2K on top of it spamming lasers at the climbers. In a fighting game you can get slowly better as you play, but in Melee you have to go out of your way to learn and practice ATs by going into training mode for hours.

 

[Saito]

Perhaps the best explanation comes from the type of thing Brawl introduced. From my perspective, Melee and Brawl are different games entirely and therefore appeal to different crowds. By that very nature you cannot develop something that will appease both crowds entirely. Actually, if you follow one of the economic ideas that there are infinite wants out there it doesn't seem so surprising that there will always those that view the idea of "ssb4 to be more like melee" to be a bad idea.

Fair enough.

Someone somewhere will be unhappy lol

The bolded is very important.

That is why one should try to develop something that can appeal to both crowds, competitive, and casual.

It's almost a given that as long as the hectic and fun gameplay of super smash brothers is not compromised then the majority of casual players will enjoy it. Add in a cast of unique and fun characters and they are sure to have a blast.

However, the competitive players are the ones that are hard to appeal to, and in the minority. From a designer point, it's not good to design your game around them and that I agree with. But to give them things that allow them to explore the game makes it more interesting for that type of player. It doesn't harm the casual player most of the time either. (aside from the match results sometimes).

It's things like this that make people consider moving from the casual crowd to the competitive crowd as well. They see something interesting, unique, or amazing and they get interested.

However, like you said though, someone will always be unhappy. But with the right design, the majority of people that will be unhappy are the ones who don't play smash brothers and aren't interested in getting into it, or a different portion of the competitive crowd.

I was actually talking to my friend about this earlier this week and he basically said that the difference between a fighting game and Melee is that in Melee there are several near-frame perfect techniques that makes what has been a slowly ascending incline to that point suddenly have a giant mountain come out of the ground with M2K on top of it spamming lasers at the climbers. In a fighting game you can get slowly better as you play, but in Melee you have to go out of your way to learn and practice ATs by going into training mode for hours.

In both smash brothers and other fighting games, you get better as you play. This is true for both games.

However, he is talking from what I assume is at most, moderate casual level play ; about the maximum potential of the game.

Even in other fighting games, you can't just slowly get better at that rate and expect to make it to the top of the pyramid. You will hit a plateau unless you practice to get better.

The only difference is that Melee has advanced techniques that players can make use of. Some of which are relatively easy to learn, but hard to apply. The ones that your friend talks about, is pretty much limited to the space animals.

Those techniques he is referring to aren't even required to do well. See Marth / Captain Falcon for example.

Even then, the techniques that characters like marth do take advantage of, such as wavedashing, wavelanding, pivot grabs, etc... are all things that can be applied in a casual scenario as well. No one is forcing you to grind it out in training mode, but you can try it out during your matches to see how it works, and how you can use it.

It literally sounds like he doesn't want to learn because he thinks the mountain is too steep to climb.

 

[QQQQQQQ7777777]

It literally sounds like he doesn't want to learn because he thinks the mountain is too steep to climb.

That's literally what I tell him.

 

[HeroMystic]

I was actually talking to my friend about this earlier this week and he basically said that the difference between a fighting game and Melee is that in Melee there are several near-frame perfect techniques that makes what has been a slowly ascending incline to that point suddenly have a giant mountain come out of the ground with M2K on top of it spamming lasers at the climbers. In a fighting game you can get slowly better as you play, but in Melee you have to go out of your way to learn and practice ATs by going into training mode for hours.

This is absolutely no different from other fighting games. BnB combos, Cancels, teching, etc., all involve going into training mode and practicing them for hours. I've done this for Persona 4 Arena, and continue this trend with Blazblue. When I used to play Starcraft 2, I've played against CPUs just to get down a build and make light experiments before jumping into league matches.

I'm going to be frank here, but it sounds like your friend is just making excuses instead of just admitting he doesn't want to put in that much effort. It's true that as you play more games, you do get better. However, this only applies for general movement techniques such as spacing, blocking, countering, etc. Perfecting combos has and always will involve going into training mode and grinding them out. Ironically, Melee/P:M relies on training mode the least, if at all.

I understand that a competitive Melee/P:M match could look completely different from a casual match, and I also understand that people dislike losing. However, this is the nature of competition. No matter the game, if the opponent has placed actual time and effort in getting better, then they will win most matches over you.

 

[FalKoopa]

Hmm, so this thread was made because I disallowed arguments in the unpopular opinions thread, huh?

Given the past precedent, threads like this devolve into flame wars very quickly. Report any post that seems hostile.

 

[QQQQQQQ7777777]

Hmm, so this thread was made because I disallowed arguments in the unpopular opinions thread, huh?

Given the past precedent, threads like this devolve into flame wars very quickly. Report any post that seems hostile.

Ok mom

 

[Renji64]

To get the topic started...

As said by many people, a game that is easy to learn but difficult to master is one of the most rewarding experiences.
Melee is a game that had that in spades and that's why so many people loved it. When people who are actually informed say they want a game like melee, they really mean they want a game that has a ton of depth.

Why is this a bad thing that they want smash 4 to be like melee? I assume it's because of what essentially is a mistranslation of what the player wants.

That is what i want and free movement, less landing lag, combos it would appeal to so much people.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Okay, I'm in. Here is my debate topic of choice.

The current system we have for choosing stages in a match (the starter/counterpick system) is inherently flawed, skews game balance, and defeats the purpose of even having counterpicks available. My stance is that we should completely eliminate this philosophy in favor of a List Striking System where stages are either legal, or banned, and players strike from a list of all legal stages to decide their first stage.

Thoughts?

 

[arcticfox8]

Hmm, so this thread was made because I disallowed arguments in the unpopular opinions thread, huh?

Given the past precedent, threads like this devolve into flame wars very quickly. Report any post that seems hostile.

Pretty much, yeah.
It just seems like in most threads arguing is frowned upon. I believe it can be healthy if both sides remain respectful.

That was the plan.

 

[Shin F.]

I understand that a competitive Melee/P:M match could look completely different from a casual match, and I also understand that people dislike losing. However, this is the nature of competition. No matter the game, if the opponent has placed actual time and effort in getting better, then they will win most matches over you.

And therein lies the difference between a casual player and a competitive player. A competitive player has the most fun when they are competing and getting better, so they love to put in that time. A casual player just wants to boot up the game and play.

When you have a game that appeals so strongly to two very different crowds, it becomes very polarized. A casual player can never match up to one who puts in all that time because they don't have that same drive to improve. They'll never win against a truly competitive player because they don't want to be competitive themselves. And it's no fun for them if they lose every match. It sounds like your solution to them is to put more time in and get better. But while that's fun for a competitive player, it's not for a casual. A competitive player who loses that much only seeks to improve so that they don't lose any more. A casual player who loses that much gets discouraged. They're not looking to compete, they're just looking to play. And even if the competitive player lets them win sometimes, it won't help since the casual isn't usually stupid. He's going to know you're letting him win.

Now, this remains true even for a game like Brawl, where a competitive player will still clean shop against a casual. This will remain true no matter what direction Sakurai takes Smash 4 in. Looking at it from that angle, it makes little sense that he's removing part of what made Smash a competitive game. Perhaps he merely doesn't quite understand what makes the game competitive, or perhaps he's trying to reduce that gap so casual players have more of a chance. Perhaps he feels he has to at least try to make things better for casual players even if he knows he'll fail. Perhaps he plans to make the game competitive in a different way. Who knows? It's still pretty early to judge, so like I've said elsewhere, I'll withhold any judgement of the game until I get it myself.

 

[dimensionsword64]

I think Toon Link should have never been in Brawl or SSB4 (and Young Link in Melee). There should not be two Links.

 

[Saito]

And therein lies the difference between a casual player and a competitive player. A competitive player has the most fun when they are competing and getting better, so they love to put in that time. A casual player just wants to boot up the game and play.

I want to say that not every casual falls into the mentioned category, and not every competitive player falls into the mentioned category as well.

Obviously there are exceptions to everything, but that doesn't make it an unreasonable generalization, nor does it negate the argument in any way.

It's not an argument.

I was only adding that people should know that your statement does not refer to all casual players, or all competitive players, and that there are plenty of people that exist in between.

 

[Shin F.]

I want to say that not every casual falls into the mentioned category, and not every competitive player falls into the mentioned category as well.

Obviously there are exceptions to everything, but that doesn't make it an unreasonable generalization, nor does it negate the argument in any way.

 

[DakotaBonez]

Smash 4 retains that easy to learn difficult to master feel, and its on a console thats catering to the hardcores like the gamecube.

I feel like the main thing standing in the way of Brawl's competitive scene was tripping, and the image of the Wii as a baby console. But there was a huge scene for Brawl anyway. Now that tripping has been removed, people will flock to Smash U.

Not to mention that people are desperate for an official sequel that can be played all over the world. Project M is the best smash game since Melee, but its only available in North America and Japan. I can't imagine what smash starvation the Aussies and European smashers must be going through.

Smash 4 either has ridiculously huge Blast Zones, or Directional Influence has been significantly beefed up, this will lead to initial criticism of the game but once people get their hands on it they'll love the enhanced hitstun and exciting new ledge game.

 

[arcticfox8]

Not to mention that people are desperate for an official sequel that can be played all over the world. Project M is the best smash game since Melee, but its only available in North America and Japan. I can't imagine what smash starvation the Aussies and European smashers must be going through.

Some of the best PM players are from Europe.

 

[HeroMystic]

And therein lies the difference between a casual player and a competitive player. A competitive player has the most fun when they are competing and getting better, so they love to put in that time. A casual player just wants to boot up the game and play.

When you have a game that appeals so strongly to two very different crowds, it becomes very polarized. A casual player can never match up to one who puts in all that time because they don't have that same drive to improve. They'll never win against a truly competitive player because they don't want to be competitive themselves. And it's no fun for them if they lose every match. It sounds like your solution to them is to put more time in and get better. But while that's fun for a competitive player, it's not for a casual. A competitive player who loses that much only seeks to improve so that they don't lose any more. A casual player who loses that much gets discouraged. They're not looking to compete, they're just looking to play. And even if the competitive player lets them win sometimes, it won't help since the casual isn't usually stupid. He's going to know you're letting him win.

Now, this remains true even for a game like Brawl, where a competitive player will still clean shop against a casual. This will remain true no matter what direction Sakurai takes Smash 4 in. Looking at it from that angle, it makes little sense that he's removing part of what made Smash a competitive game. Perhaps he merely doesn't quite understand what makes the game competitive, or perhaps he's trying to reduce that gap so casual players have more of a chance. Perhaps he feels he has to at least try to make things better for casual players even if he knows he'll fail. Perhaps he plans to make the game competitive in a different way. Who knows? It's still pretty early to judge, so like I've said elsewhere, I'll withhold any judgement of the game until I get it myself.

I'll address the bolded first just to clear the air. That wasn't a solution, but me laying out the reality of a situation. It's a science. Outliers aside, the people who put in more time getting better, will naturally be better than the ones who have not. That's just nature at work.

If I was asked if I can think of a solution to this "issue", even if I personally don't see it as one, I would say that solution already exists. Almost all modern fighters have some sort of "Party Mode", or "Easy Mode" of sorts. Blazblue has Stylish Mode where mashing buttons allow you to perform full combos, Persona 4 Arena has a built in "easy combo" button, other games have team battles, and Smash can be turned into a party game on the fly by adding items and FFA (and you can even add in a handicap). To that end, the job is already done for you. Don't want to play competitively? Then don't compete under a tournament standard.

As for Sakurai, I've never understood his philosophy. Far as I understand, he found Melee too difficult to get into, which I actually don't find to be far-fetched. With all the depth that Melee has, it actually is somewhat difficult (though I would say it's not as difficult as other fighters). That's why Brawl lacked those familiar ATs, so casual players no longer became confused by competitive players' movements. I think most people here remember their first time seeing a high level Melee match. It was completely foreign. Look at Brawl's high level matches though and it seems much closer to home.

The problem with his philosophy is how far he'll go to close that gap.

 

[Saito]

I don't know why people should think that everyone should be happy with what we get. As consumers, we do have the right to be dissatisfied with the final product, or provide criticism. Yet for some reason, if we have any complaints, a lot of people like to consider us as entitled, or urge us to not play the game at all.

It's a ridiculous notion that we should be expected to accept everything they give us, or not take it at all.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I'm going to go in to a very dark place and start a['nother] conversation about the [lack of] necessity for the advanced techniques that has everyone is freaking out about in terms of the main course of reasoning why this Sm4sh is already shaping up to be inferior to them.

Opening Statement with Postulation

Wave Dashing, L-Cancelling, Dash Dancing, and a faster fall speed are not necessary for depth of game play, nor required for the game to support a heavily competitive environment.

Argument

The advanced techniques named very much do add a layer of mobility over a game that already gives you a great amount of control over your character. However, that does not inherently mean that by removing them that the game, in turn, loses depth or freedom of control.

Let us first point out that the movement and defensive options in Sm4sh bear a closer resemblance to that of the Brawl engine, meaning we have a stronger air dodging function, and a different set of priorities in the "footsie" phase of a match that relies on having a strong short-hop aerial game and good reads. It's more of a "mind" game. Melee and Brawl are two entirely different fighting games, essentially, with different kinds of importance stressed on different elements of play in order to be a strong player.

Brawl was every bit as deep as melee, it was just in different elements of the game play that was not favorable to those who built up an almost-decade love for the style of Melee. Brawl was a very sharp change in what we knew of Smash, and it shows in the polarization of the community on these two games just how different the types of players are who like either. Brawl pushed depth in the same vein as Street Fighter. I could draw a load of comparisons between Brawl and SF4, and how Brawl was a huge step towards becoming more like a traditional fighter.

Players who like Brawl and have no issue accepting it for what it did with the franchise, likely see Sm4sh as a huge improvement in almost every category. Players who have remained with Melee or alternatively play Project M, see this as simply a repeated failure to comply with their needs as a Smash Bros. player. This is honestly just a really bad consequence of Melee and Brawl being so polarizing. One side was going to be miffed, no matter what Sm4sh ended up looking like.

Unfortunately for the Melee players, the developers see the "Brawl approach" as having more potential, leaving the Melee players wondering..."Why?". Why does he prefer that approach? Simply because I believe, just like SF4 is regarded, it is the better approach to creating a game with more raw balance. Melee, unfortunately, was riddled with issues. The roster balance is awful as well. We will never have perfect balance, but I think Brawl's approach of stressing the mental game over the twitch reflex game is more suited.

Subject #2

I made a statement in another thread that erupted in to a huge war. Here it is for reference...

http://smashboards.com/threads/e3-2014-speculation-any-more-to-come.347406/page-224#post-16902937

I chose not to continue discussing as responses were not reasonable, and mods got way too involved but here's the quote I'd like to back up.

I think you'd be surprised how influential "pro" players can be in influencing people's opinions.

Despite the best buy event and e3, it's probably fairly accurate to say that a VERY large portion of the overall smash community had yet to get their hands on the game for a match, so all they have is what they read and more influentially, what they see.

I made the argument that Zero's display at the invitational was harmful to Sm4sh's impressions on players and the community, in a nutshell. Post invitational has erupted a flurry of "Brawl 2.0!" claims. I'm surprised it's not a hash tag yet.

And then? This thread happened.

http://smashboards.com/threads/clash-tournaments-1v1-smash-4-videos-look-very-promising.358367/

See what happened here? Gameplay from players with a more keen inclination to be an aggressor or approach,all the sudden people feel better. They start to re-think things.

The rules may have promoted Zero to win in the way that he did, but it was just poor form in front of such a wide audience. He says that winning the tournament opened doors for him, but he's also created a hefty mess post-invitational, what with his "Secret announcement" and his long-winded "thank you" posts, complete with bragging about his win.

Anyway...those are my opinions that I believe people are frothing at the mouth to argue.

 

[HeroMystic]

Okay, I'm in. Here is my debate topic of choice.

The current system we have for choosing stages in a match (the starter/counterpick system) is inherently flawed, skews game balance, and defeats the purpose of even having counterpicks available. My stance is that we should completely eliminate this philosophy in favor of a List Striking System where stages are either legal, or banned, and players strike from a list of all legal stages to decide their first stage.

Thoughts?

So basically you want to simplify the current system into stage striking? No starters/counterpicks? Can you clarify why you want to do this?

Opening Statement with Postulation

Wave Dashing, L-Cancelling, Dash Dancing, and a faster fall speed are not necessary for depth of game play, nor required for the game to support a heavily competitive environment.

I agree... in fact I'm sure the majority of reasonable people agree with this as well. So this probably isn't addressed to someone with my current mindset.

I made a statement in another thread that erupted in to a huge war. Here it is for reference...

http://smashboards.com/threads/e3-2014-speculation-any-more-to-come.347406/page-224#post-16902937

I chose not to continue discussing as responses were not reasonable, and mods got way too involved but here's the quote I'd like to back up.

-quote-

I made the argument that Zero's display at the invitational was harmful to Sm4sh's impressions on players and the community, in a nutshell. Post invitational has erupted a flurry of "Brawl 2.0!" claims. I'm surprised it's not a hash tag yet.

And then? This thread happened.

http://smashboards.com/threads/clash-tournaments-1v1-smash-4-videos-look-very-promising.358367/

See what happened here? Gameplay from players with a more keen inclination to be an aggressor or approach,all the sudden people feel better. They start to re-think things.

The rules may have promoted Zero to win in the way that he did, but it was just poor form in front of such a wide audience. He says that winning the tournament opened doors for him, but he's also created a hefty mess post-invitational, what with his "Secret announcement" and his long-winded "thank you" posts, complete with bragging about his win.

Anyway...those are my opinions that I believe people are frothing at the mouth to argue.

I don't really see the big deal with this. Zero camped and played to win. I ask, if camping was his preferred playstyle and it was effective, wouldn't it have been best to showcase that? Yes, people blasted the boards with "Brawl 2.0" comments, but they weren't being sensible. Many people, like myself, took the time to question the match-up instead of the game itself. And the people who were at the invitational more or less confirmed that was the case.

If Smash 4 actually was an overly defensive and campy game, would you have preferred for Zero to hide this quality for the sake of the audience, to allow us to be negatively surprised when we get the game for ourselves? Personally, I wouldn't have liked that. Zero's match with HB was one situation where offensive play was disadvantageous. However, that did not speak for the rest of the game.

Also, this likely isn't an opposing point, but camping is not bad. It's somewhat boring to watch because it lacks active engagement, but it has and always will be a valid and appreciated tactic. The problem stems from when the balance between offense and defense is extremely lopsided within the game as a whole.

Also, Smashboards has always jumped to conclusions when new information arises. I mean... that seriously isn't anything new.

 

[LiteralGrill]

So basically you want to simplify the current system into stage striking? No starters/counterpicks? Can you clarify why you want to do this?

Yes, I would like to adopt a system that stages are either legal, or banned and strike from the full list of legal stages for game one (List Striking). I can definitely clarify why I want to do this as well.

Our current system is flawed at the core for several reasons.

1. The system caters towards a certain kind of character. The stages we have designated as "starters" all are general flat/plat stages. By requiring that these stages are the first stages to be played on, we give anyone who chooses that character an unfair advantage in the first game (the most important match of the set).

2. This system allow helps with that bias in another way. Even if the next player gets to choose a counterpick and wins, they will still be able to be brought to another starter stage for the third game. Essentially, we're giving certain players HUGE advantages for an entire set.

3. There is no real reason to practice on a counterpick stage due to this. If you can play stronger on starters you are more likely to win the match, and thus your focus should be placed on those first and foremost while you take your chances on counterpicks making the point of having counterpicks, getting an extra advantage, meaningless.

4. If a stage really isn't okay for game one, is it worth having legal at all? We don't allow them for the most important match of the game, yet deem them fair enough for competition. It should truly be legal, or banned. I would rather see the stages just outright removed then see them pointlessly legal.

5. Yes, many people say we have starter stages to reduce time as those would be the stages chosen anyways, but it is simply not fair to disallow a player to play on a stage that is the fairest on their particular matchup game 1 which List Striking allows. Before it is mentioned, I know gentlemen's picks are allowed, but they almost never happen ESPECIALLY game one on a non starter stage as no one wants to risk giving the opponent a stage they wanted. If players strike to that stage together, it will actually see play as they both equally agreed to play on it.

Now for why the other system is better.

1. It creates the best chance at arriving at thee most fair stage for each individual matchup for game one

2. This one has some variables, but it could allow stages that only have issues in certain matchups. Some people want it so that when list striking only the last 5 stages are legal for a match. So if we're playing Brawl and Rainbow Cruise was legal, I could just keep it banned vs an MK and then use it when it might actually help me out as an example. Keeping more stages legal would be awesome.

3. It adds a lot of depth. The stages struck really do have a big impact on the match and make them more interesting to watch and would help players learn a lot more about how stages effect the meta. The mind games of stage selection would be seriously interesting for viewers on streams, and players could always just agree to Smashville game one or something of the like if they wanted like they do now.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

So basically you want to simplify the current system into stage striking? No starters/counterpicks? Can you clarify why you want to do this?



I agree... in fact I'm sure the majority of reasonable people agree with this as well. So this probably isn't addressed to someone with my current mindset.


I don't really see the big deal with this. Zero camped and played to win. I ask, if camping was his preferred playstyle and it was effective, wouldn't it have been best to showcase that? Yes, people blasted the boards with "Brawl 2.0" comments, but they weren't being sensible. Many people, like myself, took the time to question the match-up instead of the game itself. And the people who were at the invitational more or less confirmed that was the case.

If Smash 4 actually was an overly defensive and campy game, would you have preferred for Zero to hide this quality for the sake of the audience, to allow us to be negatively surprised when we get the game for ourselves? Personally, I wouldn't have liked that. Zero's match with HB was one situation where offensive play was disadvantageous. However, that did not speak for the rest of the game.

Also, this likely isn't an opposing point, but camping is not bad. It's somewhat boring to watch because it lacks active engagement, but it has and always will be a valid and appreciated tactic. The problem stems from when the balance between offense and defense is extremely lopsided within the game as a whole.

Also, Smashboards has always jumped to conclusions when new information arises. I mean... that seriously isn't anything new.

Yes, I would have rather he taken a loss than played the way he did.

KDJ did it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghW-HwST_bY

The excessive booing at the end of the match and while Zero was receiving his "honors" speaks for itself, honestly.

 

[chronomantic]

I don't know why people should think that everyone should be happy with what we get. As consumers, we do have the right to be dissatisfied with the final product, or provide criticism. Yet for some reason, if we have any complaints, a lot of people like to consider us as entitled, or urge us to not play the game at all.

It's a ridiculous notion that we should be expected to accept everything they give us, or not take it at all.

Yes, complaining and criticizing is healthy but you would be still in the minority. Nintendo wants to cater to a bigger audience that's why Brawl happened and that has always been Sakurai's approach with games, why do you think the Kirby series has always been an easy game to play. Now whether Sakurai can make the game attractive for competitive players and still appeal the casuals that's another matter altogether.

 

[Con0rrrr]

Before I begin. I love K Rool. I love the classic DKC games. I need to let that be known so people son't assume I'm discounting jim because I don't like him. I love him.

I am almost sure K Rool will not be in Smash 4. And I get very annoyed when people give him a spot on their roster because "He's a shoe in" compared to the evidence of characters that are heavily hinted to be in the game.

People act like there's some hard hitting evidence for his inclusion. But I completely disagree. For characters like Shulk or Chorus Men that were leaked, there's evidence. For characters that are heavily teased like Ridley, there's evidence.

But K Rool? There's barely a lick of it. Sure the Kremling in Smash Run. But in Smash Run they're just trying to find generic enemies from the different series. I would say K Rool has a good chance if he was included in the reboots. While relevancy does not usually mean something for a characters chances, it most certainly does when the REBOOT of you're ONLY game series leaves you behind with no evidence of your return. When a series is rebooted the extent of DKC, if they need another DK rep, they'll pull from that. Why would they look towards a villain that was completely forgotten in the reboots to try and promote the title in smash bros?

I just get annoyed that he is a shoe in for so many people's rosters when their is little evidence for his inclusion and in fact more evidence for him being forgotten. I don't want people to get excited over a character with such little evidence.

 

[LiteralGrill]

Yes, I would have rather he taken a loss than played the way he did.

KDJ did it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghW-HwST_bY

The excessive booing at the end of the match and while Zero was receiving his "honors" speaks for itself, honestly.

He confirmed that he didn't do that on purpose on twitter actually.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

He confirmed that he didn't do that on purpose on twitter actually.

Yikes.

Well it still stands to reason that there wasn't anything to gain from that win aside from a temporary 5 minutes of fame.

 

[LiteralGrill]

I
I made the argument that Zero's display at the invitational was harmful to Sm4sh's impressions on players and the community, in a nutshell. Post invitational has erupted a flurry of "Brawl 2.0!" claims. I'm surprised it's not a hash tag yet.

Actually, I'll dive in and tackle this one. I'm glad he did what he did. As anti hype as it was, the crowd reaction of booing might make nintendo understand that we don't want that kind of thing happening in game, and they might strive to fix it.

Plus if they do decide to host events, they might not use sudden death next time.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

Actually, I'll dive in and tackle this one. I'm glad he did what he did. As anti hype as it was, the crowd reaction of booing might make nintendo understand that we don't want that kind of thing happening in game, and they might strive to fix it.

Plus if they do decide to host events, they might not use sudden death next time.

It's not impossible to play that way in even Melee.

See : Apex 2012.

It's simply a play style that I think was unsuited for a tournament meant to be 100% for fun/show, and unfortunately Zero takes pride in being the king of it. Don't think his match VS ADHD should need to be linked again...

I don't think it's beneficial to development at all. The offensive/defensive doesn't need to change.

Luckily his play style is inordinately rare as most have fun with Smash by actually attacking.

 

[mimgrim]

Here is something that might open a nasty can of worms.

There is a clear difference between a casual and a competitive gamer. A true casual is someone who doesn't own very many games, doesn't keep up with games, and frankly doesn;t really care about them in the long run. A competitive player is someone who plays to win, the general consensus is a tournament player or someone who plays for money. However in between these two categories you also have things such as game, hardcore gamer, casual-competitive, and so on. A true casual and even most non competitive/casual-competitive players will enjoy Smash no matter what. They enjoyed the **** out of Melee and Brawl and will continue to enjoy the **** out of Smash 4. Competitive players and casual-competitive players are a bit more picky, but some aren't at the same time, and know what they want. They just want 2 extremely different things. A casual-competitive is generally someone who wants to play competitively and win, but doesn't have the drive to actually practice and get better. So they want an easier game were the can just play it and be as good as everyone else. These are the ones that usually claim Melee is too hard and stuff. The competitive player is opposite, they want to constantly get better and improve and stuff.

Basically what I am getting at it is that even if Smash were made for a competitive player in mind, the casuals, and those who don't play Smash competitively but can still fall under gamer or hardcore gamer, wouldn't actually be affected by it and would still continue to enjoy it. So Sakurai wasn't actually catering the actual casuals, since all they need in the end is content, but rather to the casual-competitive player when making Brawl. Which way Smash4 will go remains to be seen, but it seems to currently be leaning towards the casual-competitive more.

For perspective; I am a player who is trying to get competitive but hasn't gone to many tournaments so far but is still trying to improve my game everyday by myself and try to go to Smashfests whenever I can and stuff. I don't think core Melee is too hard, however I do believe that Fox and Ice Climbers are on the harder side for core Melee but everything isn't too hard or even all that hard to begin with. I also don't think Brawl is too easy, it has it's own stuff to it, and I like it a little bit more then Melee because I find it to have better fluidity. However I like Project M the most between the 3.

 

[Saito]

Here is something that might open a nasty can of worms.

Basically what I am getting at it is that even if Smash were made for a competitive player in mind, the casuals, and those who don't play Smash competitively but can still fall under gamer or hardcore gamer, wouldn't actually be affected by it and would still continue to enjoy it. So Sakurai wasn't actually catering the actual casuals, since all they need in the end is content, but rather to the casual-competitive player when making Brawl. Which way Smash4 will go remains to be seen, but it seems to currently be leaning towards the casual-competitive more.

Actually I don't think this opens a nasty can of worms.

This is generally accepted, but the real thing is that sakurai doesn't feel the same way, and makes his games more accessible.

It's not a bad thing, it's just bad from the perspective of people who want all of the options in previous installments.