Things they should "nerf" and "unnerf" in SSB4

[Bajef8]

come on people, i know we all want to see Peach's dSmash rebuffed Melee style

 

[[Corn]]

Just make sure that all chain grabs are sought out and destroyed. Glitches/Bugs are fine. Can't wait to see what kind of crazy programming errors we'll stumble upon in SM4SH. I'm hoping someone finds out how to play as a Multi Man.

Chaingrabs can be considered a form of glitch/bug fyi...

Anyways their is really no way to remove them, some characters are bound to have them, dont understand the hatred towards them when every single game had a form of them yet characters who used them didnt destroy the metagame.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Chaingrabs can be considered a form of glitch/bug fyi...

Anyways their is really no way to remove them, some characters are bound to have them, dont understand the hatred towards them when every single game had a form of them yet characters who used them didnt destroy the metagame.

I had typed up a nice response to this, but then my comp froze and lost it. >:/

Anyways, I could see them add sort of a juggle-counter system like Tekken, where knockback is slightly increased for each hit in a combo/string (i.e. while the opponent is in the air). They could make it so subsequent grabs had slightly more knockback each time, allowing the attackee to escape after 3 or 4 pretty easily.

My main problem with CG’s is that they generally render other parts of the game nonviable for competition.
-in Melee, Sheik/Ganon/IC’s, etc essentially rendered > 2/3 of the cast unusable for serious play. Sheik had a 0-death CG combo against practically the entire low/bottom tiers, so she would render them mostly useless by herself.
-in Brawl, DDD essentially made every stage with a wall or walkoff bannable for tournaments. Then stupid things like Pika’s dthrow infinite and Sheik’s f-tilt infinite on spacies render single characters unusable… meaning, any halfway competent player could CP Pika and land a grab eventually, which just really hurt Fox/Wolf’s viability (there are other specific instances like this, like Marth > Lucas, etc)


That leads into my second point… in Brawl especially, CG’s would allow less-skilled players to win handily (matchup specific of course). This is the same problem I have with MK’s tornado. In Melee at least, CG’s were relatively hard to consistently pull off, because of DI… in Brawl, most CG throws had set knockback, so DI was mostly irrelevant.

 

[[Corn]]

I had typed up a nice response to this, but then my comp froze and lost it. >:/

Anyways, I could see them add sort of a juggle-counter system like Tekken, where knockback is slightly increased for each hit in a combo/string (i.e. while the opponent is in the air). They could make it so subsequent grabs had slightly more knockback each time, allowing the attackee to escape after 3 or 4 pretty easily.

My main problem with CG’s is that they generally render other parts of the game nonviable for competition.
-in Melee, Sheik/Ganon/IC’s, etc essentially rendered > 2/3 of the cast unusable for serious play. Sheik had a 0-death CG combo against practically the entire low/bottom tiers, so she would render them mostly useless by herself.
-in Brawl, DDD essentially made every stage with a wall or walkoff bannable for tournaments. Then stupid things like Pika’s dthrow infinite and Sheik’s f-tilt infinite on spacies render single characters unusable… meaning, any halfway competent player could CP Pika and land a grab eventually, which just really hurt Fox/Wolf’s viability (there are other specific instances like this, like Marth > Lucas, etc)


That leads into my second point… in Brawl especially, CG’s would allow less-skilled players to win handily (matchup specific of course). This is the same problem I have with MK’s tornado. In Melee at least, CG’s were relatively hard to consistently pull off, because of DI… in Brawl, most CG throws had set knockback, so DI was mostly irrelevant.

Well CG's render matchups sort of useless yes, but so do other tactics. Most of the nearly unwinnable matchups low tiers have against Icies is due to Blizzard being super amazing, this is especially true for Ganon and non projectile characters.

Stuff that is easy to do, DDD or Falco especially, is stuff that I dont really agree with. Though stages with walls or walkoffs I dont believe are suitable for serious play most of the time, as many many many characters can lock walls with moves they have that may/may not be grabs as ones with walkoffs simply make the edge game irrelevant. Wobbling in melee I am torn on, but I still use it as it is one of the tools Icies have and it isnt unbeatable. For me ease of use is the tipping point, not the actual thing itself. Pika's D-throw infinite only works on the edge of platforms I believe? Regardless that is a very odd position to get into. Brawl Climbers did it right and wrong at the same time, we lost the ease of wobbling but gained buffs in nearly other regards which allows us to land the grab better and if you had enough practice you could overcome the high learning curve. Main problem people seem to have with them is that they are by far the best punish character in the game with grabs, but can also punish well without using them. The only thing keeping Icies from being undesputedly the best character in every smash game is Nana's incredibly dumb AI. I quite enjoyed the Dthrow short hop dair from melee but it made certain characters stupid when playing icies if they had no means of chaining something.

Also grab release infinites are something that I strongly disagree with allowing into play, I accept grab release advantages but not infinite. One of my friends plays a mean Ness and I learned the character to understand why he accepted me playing Icies yet was so against grab release infinites yet accepted grab release smashes and such. Learned that accepting an easy technique that guarantees a stock to select characters is more infuriating to most then a high skill technique that nearly guarantees a stock to most. Something of which most of the people that I discuss such things agree with. As long as a technique requires a high skill level and still allows the opponent to win it will be acceptable.


I dont ever mention MK in balance, I strongly agree with disallowing a character with such a skewed skill/reward ratio and incredibly easy moves that shows in all levels of play. Regardless things will exist to skew matchups, my only issue is if the technique itself is easy to pull off.

tl'dr:
I dont mind if a technique skews matchups if it isnt easy to set up or do. (Characters that can infinite Diddy with his own naners/Majority of Icies Grabs that require different timing per weight class/QAC hobble)
I do mind if a technique is easy compared to the rewards it reaps. (Snakes phantom hitboxes/Majority of MK's moves/Desynced Blizzard/D3 chaingrab or infinite/Falcos Chaingrab/Wario Pivot infinite/ Pika D-throw on spacies/Grab release infinites)
I do mind if counterpicking a stage is more useful then counterpicking a character. So I strongly support fairly nuetral stages that dont change the basics of the game unless it is a temporary transition. (I am strongly against stages such as Brinstar/Norfair/RC/Shadow Moses)

 

[DakotaBonez]

I've always thought that all unescapable infinites are problems, no matter the difficulty of the input.If smash had some kinda pushback feature, like when both players press the grab button at the same time and it cancels both grabs, it could fix this.

EDIT: Shortened to get straight to point

 

[mimgrim]

I don't think CGs should be gotten rid of completly cause as been said they have been in pretty much everygame. However they do need to be dealt with to an extent. There should be no infinite CGs at all, no matter how easy or hard it is to preform. Infinit CGs are just bad. CGs also shouldn't have the power to render X character in X MU useless or almost useless. If they can get those 2 things fixed CGs shouldn't be as big of a problem yet still there and useful. I feel like people saying X move on X character should be nerf are more or less being biased and just have a hard time getting pass X move. :/

 

[DakotaBonez]

Crap I've turned this thread into another debate over infinites.

 

[Reznor]

Crap I've turned this thread into another debate over infinites.

look at the title of the thread man it was bound to happen

 

[Fenrir VII]

Well CG's render matchups sort of useless yes, but so do other tactics. Most of the nearly unwinnable matchups low tiers have against Icies is due to Blizzard being super amazing, this is especially true for Ganon and non projectile characters.

Stuff that is easy to do, DDD or Falco especially, is stuff that I dont really agree with. Though stages with walls or walkoffs I dont believe are suitable for serious play most of the time, as many many many characters can lock walls with moves they have that may/may not be grabs as ones with walkoffs simply make the edge game irrelevant. Wobbling in melee I am torn on, but I still use it as it is one of the tools Icies have and it isnt unbeatable. For me ease of use is the tipping point, not the actual thing itself. Pika's D-throw infinite only works on the edge of platforms I believe? Regardless that is a very odd position to get into. Brawl Climbers did it right and wrong at the same time, we lost the ease of wobbling but gained buffs in nearly other regards which allows us to land the grab better and if you had enough practice you could overcome the high learning curve. Main problem people seem to have with them is that they are by far the best punish character in the game with grabs, but can also punish well without using them. The only thing keeping Icies from being undesputedly the best character in every smash game is Nana's incredibly dumb AI. I quite enjoyed the Dthrow short hop dair from melee but it made certain characters stupid when playing icies if they had no means of chaining something.

Also grab release infinites are something that I strongly disagree with allowing into play, I accept grab release advantages but not infinite. One of my friends plays a mean Ness and I learned the character to understand why he accepted me playing Icies yet was so against grab release infinites yet accepted grab release smashes and such. Learned that accepting an easy technique that guarantees a stock to select characters is more infuriating to most then a high skill technique that nearly guarantees a stock to most. Something of which most of the people that I discuss such things agree with. As long as a technique requires a high skill level and still allows the opponent to win it will be acceptable.


I dont ever mention MK in balance, I strongly agree with disallowing a character with such a skewed skill/reward ratio and incredibly easy moves that shows in all levels of play. Regardless things will exist to skew matchups, my only issue is if the technique itself is easy to pull off.

tl'dr:
I dont mind if a technique skews matchups if it isnt easy to set up or do. (Characters that can infinite Diddy with his own naners/Majority of Icies Grabs that require different timing per weight class/QAC hobble)
I do mind if a technique is easy compared to the rewards it reaps. (Snakes phantom hitboxes/Majority of MK's moves/Desynced Blizzard/D3 chaingrab or infinite/Falcos Chaingrab/Wario Pivot infinite/ Pika D-throw on spacies/Grab release infinites)
I do mind if counterpicking a stage is more useful then counterpicking a character. So I strongly support fairly nuetral stages that dont change the basics of the game unless it is a temporary transition. (I am strongly against stages such as Brinstar/Norfair/RC/Shadow Moses)

Nah, the Pikachu grab infinite is anywhere on the stage (at least on Fox) at really any % below like 80, then combos into usmash for a kill. It's brutal.

IC's are tricky to play, yeah, but at the end of the day in both Melee and Brawl (with current rulesets...wobbling) 1 grab = death, and that's just a very skewed version of the risk reward system. The only reason (imo) that they are not #1 in each Smash game is that there are a few characters in each game that can safely deal with them without being grabbed... but that doesn't mean they don't make at least 1/2 the characters useless.

I'll generalize my point of view as saying I am against any tactic that can 0-death an opponent after 1 hit/grab, without that opponent having the opportunity to react/counter.
In the IC's case in Brawl... the CG's are relatively difficult, but that is only on the player.. the opponent has no input on whether the grabs work or not.

There are really good combos and such in Melee that can 0-death, but the opponent still has a chance to DI/evade, which makes the attacker adapt. I'm completely in favor of those.. it's the wave-shine wall infinites, infinite CG/grab release shenanigans, wobbling, etc that really mess up the games, imo... and I don't think they're that hard to fix in development (or through a better ruleset).

As for stages, I agree with your general statement, but I'm curious as to why you throw Brinstar in there... I've always kind of thought that was a very good, albeit situational, CP stage

 

[Mr. OC]

I still say remove all of Sonic and Olimar's hitboxes

 

[Mr. OC]

Also, buff Lucario by making him a clone of C. Falcon

and give samus MK's moveset

 

[[Corn]]

All unescapable infinites are problems, since your a big ice climber fan I can understand how important grabs are to your playstyle, but surely you must see how unfair it is that you can render your opponent completely helpless. I mean it's difficult to land, and requires precise timing, but so does a Falcon Punch.
The only difference being that ya gotta memorize the input for wobbling and people argue that because you have to memorize the input then it's suddenly okay to have a game breaking move in the game? Are other fighting games cool with keeping in attacks that trap their opponent in the corner and stuck in a stunned state with no option for retaliation?

If smash had some kinda pushback feature, like when both players press the grab button at the same time and it cancels both grabs, it could fix this.

Yes I am a fan of Icies as characters, but the main reason I like them is the focus on grabs. In nearly every fighting game I choose characters that can capitilize the most on grabs or have playstyles focused around them. Before Icies I played Olimar in brawl and Ganon in melee. Just because something is disliked, doesnt mean that it isnt acceptable. This is something that a competitive mindsets must have in order to progress.

Wobbling is very easy, and I already mentioned that is why I have an issue with it. Many fighting games have combos or stun locks that put your opponent at dangerously low health or only need to be done once or twice, most of which are basically unescapable. Smash has the ability to be much more forgiving then other games. Be glad blockstun infinites/resets/50:50s... dont exist much.

CGing in itself isnt isnt game breaking, nor does the entire metagame involve IC dittos because other characters have no chance against them//Icies themselves have an EZ time getting the grab. A gamebreaking chain grab would be something if D3's grab didnt move forward, worked on every character, and he had a reliable way of finishing it.

The main reason why ICies have those odd matchups againt the low tiers is not because of CGing, it is due to desynced blizzards. There is literally nothing Ganon/Sheik/Other characters that rely on physical moves and lack a good projectile can get past such a simple tactic. Same goes with the lower tiers that have extremely laggy moves. Characters like Peach who are reletively easy to get the CG timing on but have all the tools needed to not get grabbed have a soft counter on the tikes.

I don't think CGs should be gotten rid of completly cause as been said they have been in pretty much everygame. However they do need to be dealt with to an extent. There should be no infinite CGs at all, no matter how easy or hard it is to preform. Infinit CGs are just bad. CGs also shouldn't have the power to render X character in X MU useless or almost useless. If they can get those 2 things fixed CGs shouldn't be as big of a problem yet still there and useful. I feel like people saying X move on X character should be nerf are more or less being biased and just have a hard time getting pass X move. :/

Nah, the Pikachu grab infinite is anywhere on the stage (at least on Fox) at really any % below like 80, then combos into usmash for a kill. It's brutal.

IC's are tricky to play, yeah, but at the end of the day in both Melee and Brawl (with current rulesets...wobbling) 1 grab = death, and that's just a very skewed version of the risk reward system. The only reason (imo) that they are not #1 in each Smash game is that there are a few characters in each game that can safely deal with them without being grabbed... but that doesn't mean they don't make at least 1/2 the characters useless.

I'll generalize my point of view as saying I am against any tactic that can 0-death an opponent after 1 hit/grab, without that opponent having the opportunity to react/counter.
In the IC's case in Brawl... the CG's are relatively difficult, but that is only on the player.. the opponent has no input on whether the grabs work or not.

There are really good combos and such in Melee that can 0-death, but the opponent still has a chance to DI/evade, which makes the attacker adapt. I'm completely in favor of those.. it's the wave-shine wall infinites, infinite CG/grab release shenanigans, wobbling, etc that really mess up the games, imo... and I don't think they're that hard to fix in development (or through a better ruleset).

As for stages, I agree with your general statement, but I'm curious as to why you throw Brinstar in there... I've always kind of thought that was a very good, albeit situational, CP stage

Meh, again I usually dont have issues with high skill techniques that can 0 death as long as the entire metagame isnt focused around your opponent using that character or you needing to learn the character to have a chance against the character. I dont understand why people accept MK who is literally a character that cannot be counterpicked and is the metagame itself, then go on and bash CG's for being a bad tactic or ruining the game.


It really depends on what you mean by infinite. Capping a CG at like 100% would allow for it to still have the same effect yet not be an inifinite, Pikas on Spacies for instance. Does everyone here mean 0-deaths?

Many many moves will cause matchup difficulty, but only a few have the ability to negate matchups entirely. Tornado/Blizzard/D3 Infinite on like 3 chars come to mind.

Brinstar because of rising lava and detructables blocking/laging moves or projectiles.

 

[kackamee]

I'm on the fence about Ice Climber CG's. In Melee and Brawl I liked how CG's/grab combos worked in both, but in Smash 4 it's unlikely that they will be back in either form. I just hope that they still get the most reward for getting grabs, because that is also what I like most about Ice Climbers. It doesn't have to be a 0-death, but hopefully whatever they choose to do with IC's grab shenanigans has a nice balance around their overall playstyle, hopefully with cool ways to set up grabs like there were in Melee and Brawl.

 

[mimgrim]

A CG shouldn't be able to go up to 100% either. I don't care how friggen high a skill technique is. No move what so ever should be able to lead to 0% -----> to death, no matter how friggen hard it is. Because in the end people will end p mastering the move and being able to pull it off easily for themselves making to move a problem. CGs are fine, when they only last to like 50% or so and have a medium amount of difficulty (Your talking to someone who can barely CG with Falco, so my amount of medium difficulty differs from most, but what is hard for me is probably medium for other people making Falco's CG easy for other people that aren't me lol). Or at the very least make it so it possibly to escape out of CGs without making escaping hard to do, then infinit CGs wouldn't exist and you don't have to wait to X% to get out of it. Anything that makes a game unplayable for a single player is just not good, and infinite CGs cause that becuase once it happens th other player is basically no longer playing the game at that point.

I can't speak for other people but I accept MK because to me hi is not game breaking. He is powerful yes and is the best character in the game. But he is not unwinnable against. Does he need a nerf? Most likely, because as you said he does define the metagame. However is he worse then something that makes the game unplayable for a player? I would have to say no. And before you even accuse me of ebing biased towards MK and saying I probably play him. I'm not. I'm not even good with MK lol.

 

[Fenrir VII]

typically when I say "infinite", I'm meaning 0-death consistently, yeah.

These are my opinions:

examples of acceptable tactics/CG's:
-Marth's CG on Spacies in Melee. (goes to ~40-50%, requires a lot of skill, DI-influence-able, etc)
-IC's CG in Melee (very good against most chars BUT requires a LOT of skill, hard to set up, DI-influence-able, etc)
-Most 0-death combos in Melee (usually require a lot of adaptation, and the opponent has escape options)
-DDD's general CG on stage in Brawl (Most of the time it gives 3-4 grabs to the ledge, no reliable followup, etc)
-etc

examples of bad tactics/CG's:
-Wobbling (for the life of me I can't figure out why this is legal...somewhat hard to set up, I guess, but still.)
-Sheik's CG in Melee (0-death against most of the mid-low tiers, DI-influence-able, but still easy to land followup grabs regardless of DI)
-Waveshine against a wall
-DDD's CG against a wall / walkoff
-Falco's CG in Brawl (dair followup just kills most chars)
-Pika's dthrow infinite in Brawl
-Sheik's f-tilt infinite in Brawl
-Marth's Grab release infinite in Brawl
-IC's insta-CG's in Brawl (yes, requires skill... but this is a simple button practice and cannot be influenced by the opponent. And yes, it's tricky to get a grab, but even still "don't get grabbed" is not an acceptable argument for most characters.)


Regarding MK, I agree that he has no counters, but I actually do think he has a few potentially disadvantageous matchups (including Fox), but those characters are rendered terrible by other characters, so they've never been fully developed.

I don't need to turn this into a character matchup discussion, but consider this. What if Fox had a 6-4 against MK, but the MK could switch to Pika and have an 8-2 because of the chaingrab? With the possibility of this, would Fox be cultivated enough as a character to compete with MK? That possibility, in a nutshell, is why I care more about CG's and infinite tactics than a single character's advantages.

 

[[Corn]]

A CG shouldn't be able to go up to 100% either. I don't care how friggen high a skill technique is. No move what so ever should be able to lead to 0% -----> to death, no matter how friggen hard it is. Because in the end people will end p mastering the move and being able to pull it off easily for themselves making to move a problem. CGs are fine, when they only last to like 50% or so and have a medium amount of difficulty (Your talking to someone who can barely CG with Falco, so my amount of medium difficulty differs from most, but what is hard for me is probably medium for other people making Falco's CG easy for other people that aren't me lol). Or at the very least make it so it possibly to escape out of CGs without making escaping hard to do, then infinit CGs wouldn't exist and you don't have to wait to X% to get out of it. Anything that makes a game unplayable for a single player is just not good, and infinite CGs cause that becuase once it happens th other player is basically no longer playing the game at that point.

I can't speak for other people but I accept MK because to me hi is not game breaking. He is powerful yes and is the best character in the game. But he is not unwinnable against. Does he need a nerf? Most likely, because as you said he does define the metagame. However is he worse then something that makes the game unplayable for a player? I would have to say no. And before you even accuse me of ebing biased towards MK and saying I probably play him. I'm not. I'm not even good with MK lol.

This is the mindset that stumps me.

Gamebreaking =/= Literally making the game unplayable for the other side
Gamebreaking = Something in a game that is so completely dominant that it has no logical reason not to be played 24/7.

MK breaks the game in a competitive sense, you cannot counterpick him with character nor stages. He is relatively easy to use and is very rewarding for all levels of play, undoubtedly the best character in the game as well plus having multiple rules just dealing with him. A person who chooses MK will never be at a disadvantage assuming equal skill level of his opponents nor will never need to learn other characters. This breaks the entire metagame. From a logical standpoint, there is no other reason to choose any other character besides MK as you will be at a potential disadvantage against another character/stage if you decide not to. This divides people into those who only care about winning, those who care mainly about winning but interject fun into their reasoning, and those who dont care. Fun is subjective and as such the definition varies from person to person. This is all due to us being Humans and Not Machines, though the first category of players act like them.

Icies break the game in a fun sense. You can counterpick them with multiple characters and stages, they have a high learning curve compared to many of the cast, and due to the high skill floor, they only tend to place in high level events while being irrelevant in other levels. A person who chooses IC knows that the character they play has disadvantages compared to other characters and must learn secondaries and odd tactics to overcome them. People then use the subjective term fun to form reasoning against a technique. When playing a game competitvely, fun is normally secondary and is overridden by logic and research. Sometimes you just have to accept that this character will punish you much harsher then every single one in the game, as that is their entire gameplan. None of the CG's they have make any matchups unwinnable for the other player, just forces them to play extremely different or cautiously. When viewed from a non competitive mindset these are often dubbed "cheap or gay" but in reality are the correct response to the tactic.

A good way to check if something is gamebreaking is to remove the thing itself and see if the results of the change impact the metagame in a large way:

-Removing MK would completely rewrite aspects of the ruleset, cause many characters to suddenly becomes way more viable or rise in tiers, and in turn would increase the variety of playstyles and characters seen. Due to the higher tiers basically being based on characers vs MK potential things would probably get a large overhaul. Overall fun value and competitive aspects increase.

-Removing IC's changrabs would lower them in the tier list to at least C or D, most characters with hard matchups against IC werent due to the grabs but rather Blizzard so they wouldnt change much, most of the higher tiers would probably be the same but characters who rose due to positive IC's matchups will lower and have less use like Peach. Nothing would really change drastically enough to be considered positive. Overall the only thing that increased was fun.

This is the basically the reasoning why Wobbling is allowed in melee as well. There is really no reason to ban or limit something that doesnt effect the game's metagame or competitive value. Fun isnt a viable grounds to base reasoning on.

Regarding MK, I agree that he has no counters, but I actually do think he has a few potentially disadvantageous matchups (including Fox), but those characters are rendered terrible by other characters, so they've never been fully developed.

I don't need to turn this into a character matchup discussion, but consider this. What if Fox had a 6-4 against MK, but the MK could switch to Pika and have an 8-2 because of the chaingrab? With the possibility of this, would Fox be cultivated enough as a character to compete with MK? That possibility, in a nutshell, is why I care more about CG's and infinite tactics than a single character's advantages.

Regrading the other stuff, I covered it above.

If Fox had a 6-4 against Meta chances are he would have at least one other bad matchup, but lets disregard that even though this situation mimics Peach. It is totally acceptable for a player to counterpick the other character as long as the matchup isnt completely unwinnable and a counter character exists. Considering that that Pikachu has multiple bad matchups, him losing and choosing....Olimar who has a large advantage against Pika. Thats the nature of the counterpick system in a nutshell. But people are people and make mistakes, you may lose a winning matchup and you may win a losing one.

 

[mimgrim]

This is the mindset that stumps me.

Gamebreaking =/= Literally making the game unplayable for the other side

Gamebreaking = Something in a game that is so completely dominant that it has no logical reason not to be played 24/7.

I strongly disagree with you term of "gamebreaking" what you are describing as "gamebreaking" is called "broken" but "broken" is not the same as "gamebreaking". "Brokeness" affects the metagame, Gamebreaking can affect the metagame but it also affects the game itself. "Gamebreaking" can be various things from major glitches that make the game almost unplayable (see Pandora's Tower) or something that makes the game unplayable on one side pretty much (like an ifinite CG as you when you get cuaght up into a infinite only one player is now playing that game now). The term you want is "broken" as that is what is used for metagames and the what not.

MK breaks the game in a competitive sense, you cannot counterpick him with character nor stages. He is relatively easy to use and is very rewarding for all levels of play, undoubtedly the best character in the game as well plus having multiple rules just dealing with him. A person who chooses MK will never be at a disadvantage assuming equal skill level of his opponents nor will never need to learn other characters. This breaks the entire metagame. From a logical standpoint, there is no other reason to choose any other character besides MK as you will be at a potential disadvantage against another character/stage if you decide not to. This divides people into those who only care about winning, those who care mainly about winning but interject fun into their reasoning, and those who dont care. Fun is subjective and as such the definition varies from person to person. This is all due to us being Humans and Not Machines, though the first category of players act like them.

We aren't looking at a competitive sense though. In general Metaknight is NOT Gamebreaking as he doesn't amke the game unplayable for one or more sides. Metagame =/= actual game. Metagame is fan created and should not reflect on the actual game. And what is cosnidered broken in the metagame is not always gamebreaking, because gamebreaking is literally breaking the game it self to where it unplayable for one side, multiple sides, or all sides.

reak the game in a fun sense. You can counterpick them with multiple characters and stages, they have a high learning curve compared to many of the cast, and due to the high skill floor, they only tend to place in high level events while being irrelevant in other levels. A person who chooses IC knows that the character they play has disadvantages compared to other characters and must learn secondaries and odd tactics to overcome them. People then use the subjective term fun to form reasoning against a technique. When playing a game competitvely, fun is normally secondary and is overridden by logic and research. Sometimes you just have to accept that this character will punish you much harsher then every single one in the game, as that is their entire gameplan. None of the CG's they have make any matchups unwinnable for the other player, just forces them to play extremely different or cautiously. When viewed from a non competitive mindset these are often dubbed "cheap or gay" but in reality are the correct response to the tactic.

Like you said earlier, fun is subjective. Personally I don't find ICs fun due to the infinite CGs. But that doesn't matter, what matters if that infinit CGs are gamebreaking.

way to check if something is gamebreaking is to remove the thing itself and see if the results of the change impact the metagame in a large way:

-Removing MK would completely rewrite aspects of the ruleset, cause many characters to suddenly becomes way more viable or rise in tiers, and in turn would increase the variety of playstyles and characters seen. Due to the higher tiers basically being based on characers vs MK potential things would probably get a large overhaul. Overall fun value and competitive aspects increase.

-Removing IC's changrabs would lower them in the tier list to at least C or D, most characters with hard matchups against IC werent due to the grabs but rather Blizzard so they wouldnt change much, most of the higher tiers would probably be the same but characters who rose due to positive IC's matchups will lower and have less use like Peach. Nothing would really change drastically enough to be considered positive. Overall the only thing that increased was fun.

This is the basically the reasoning why Wobbling is allowed in melee as well. There is really no reason to ban or limit something that doesnt effect the game's metagame or competitive value. Fun isnt a viable grounds to base reasoning on.

You are still mixing up broken and gamebreaking. Broken is the term used in metagames for characters like Mk. Gamebreaking literally means making the game unplayable. I'm not saying MK isn't broke but he defiantly isn't gamebreaking. I'm also not saying to get rid of ICs chaingrabs in their enternity. But to make it where they aren't infinite/can't lead from 0% to death. CGs in theory can be good if implemented correctly. The ebst sdtep for them to be better is to not allow infinites and for their to be a chance to escape from them.

 

[Fenrir VII]

Regrading the other stuff, I covered it above.

If Fox had a 6-4 against Meta chances are he would have at least one other bad matchup, but lets disregard that even though this situation mimics Peach. It is totally acceptable for a player to counterpick the other character as long as the matchup isnt completely unwinnable and a counter character exists. Considering that that Pikachu has multiple bad matchups, him losing and choosing....Olimar who has a large advantage against Pika. Thats the nature of the counterpick system in a nutshell. But people are people and make mistakes, you may lose a winning matchup and you may win a losing one.

Nah you're right. As a Fox player, that's the only match I can personally comment on. I'm sure this example exists for other characters as well. (I actually remember hearing that Yoshi had a pretty good matchup against MK at one point)

My point is that Pika's CG (and a couple other techs) have rendered Fox nonviable for tournament use. Because of this, his metagame has suffered, and we have no idea what he could have been, had the CG's not existed. The matchup chart (correctly) lists him with ~3 bad matchups, iirc (IC's, Pika, and Sheik)... and then he's got mostly even or favorable matchups against most of the top and high tier, so without those 3, he could have easily been a great tournament option. But those three have killed his viability, and thus people don't play him.

Contrast this with MK, who is played by hundreds or thousands of players in tournaments... which character is going to have a deeper, more known metagame?

My only point is that MK could easily have bad matchups that we don't know about because most of the characters in the game have been relatively un-cultivated - mainly because of the "bad" tactics that I listed above (i.e. Marth, DDD, IC's, Snake, and Falco have essentially shielded MK from his potentially bad matchups by utterly destroying the metagame of most of the characters in the game, but those 5 are all "countered" by MK)

 

[LiteralGrill]

I see a lot of people here talking about "bringing back" Captain Falcon's Knee in some way or another, but I think "bring back Captain Falcon's Knee setups" is a better request.

Also, I think Ganon suffers from being too predictable due to his slow speed. To give him some unpredictability, I think it would be a good idea to allow Ganondorf to charge many more moves than just his smash attacks. I can imagine a chargeable forward tilt, forward air, and a chargeable -reworked- up tilt. I think this would be a great idea because as you charge the moves, I imagine that they would gain power. To me, Ganondorf is all about slow, powerful strikes and this idea fits the theme perfectly. I know some people may disagree and proceed to talk about buffs to his priority and recovery, but this idea I had just fits really well in my mind.

I have a bunch of other ideas that I might post later.

Look at Zeus in PSASBR, kinda like that? Because in all honesty with a few cancels here and there he was a very unique hard hitter.

 

[[Corn]]

I strongly disagree with you term of "gamebreaking" what you are describing as "gamebreaking" is called "broken" but "broken" is not the same as "gamebreaking". "Brokeness" affects the metagame, Gamebreaking can affect the metagame but it also affects the game itself. "Gamebreaking" can be various things from major glitches that make the game almost unplayable (see Pandora's Tower) or something that makes the game unplayable on one side pretty much (like an ifinite CG as you when you get cuaght up into a infinite only one player is now playing that game now). The term you want is "broken" as that is what is used for metagames and the what not.

We aren't looking at a competitive sense though. In general Metaknight is NOT Gamebreaking as he doesn't amke the game unplayable for one or more sides. Metagame =/= actual game. Metagame is fan created and should not reflect on the actual game. And what is cosnidered broken in the metagame is not always gamebreaking, because gamebreaking is literally breaking the game it self to where it unplayable for one side, multiple sides, or all sides.

Like you said earlier, fun is subjective. Personally I don't find ICs fun due to the infinite CGs. But that doesn't matter, what matters if that infinit CGs are gamebreaking.

You are still mixing up broken and gamebreaking. Broken is the term used in metagames for characters like Mk. Gamebreaking literally means making the game unplayable. I'm not saying MK isn't broke but he defiantly isn't gamebreaking. I'm also not saying to get rid of ICs chaingrabs in their enternity. But to make it where they aren't infinite/can't lead from 0% to death. CGs in theory can be good if implemented correctly. The ebst sdtep for them to be better is to not allow infinites and for their to be a chance to escape from them.

First off, everything discussed here is in a competitive sense, as banning characters or tactics only matters in high level play. You cant use any other reasoning.

If you want to use that definition of game breaking, nearly every single thing that removes control from you the player while still allowing your opponent to move is game breaking. I guess every single grab or near/guaranteed combo is gamebreaking. Yours seems purely based on objective fairness.

In reality, the terms broken and gamebreaking are almost interchangeable.

Most people use a definition for gamebreaking as like:
"A controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all other elements/characters/tactics if used. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker may be a legitimate element of the game used in an unintended way. Contests are decided less by a player's skill and strategy, and more by whether they use the Game Breaker in question."

The only thing the Icies CG has in common with this definition is that
-CGing is controversial
-CGing is an element of the game used in an unintended way

CGing in itself is a technique that requires setup and you cant "mindlessly" grab people or rush. Dont get grabbed is a legit stratagy simplified. The character itself has weaknessed which become weaknesses of the techniques setup. Icies having this ability isnt dominating the game itself either.

MK has in common:
-Mk is controversial
-MK trumps all other options if used (Or at the very least is even)
-Due to MK being superior to every other character, logically matches when people use him are in his favor assuming equal skill whilst one side doesn't use him.

MK fits the definition more commonly used to the T.

Compared to the usual definition of broken:
"A game object/character/strategy that is too good/bad to exist. It is so powerful/weak that it is unbalanced compared to the other options available in the game and hence breaks the game. Every winning player has to use/not use this this to be competitively successful with others using the same tactic. At the very minimum, the decision to use/not use the object/character/strategy is to reduce the opponents options to such a small degree that they will always be at a disadvantage."

Icies CG:
-Icies CG are broken towards the other options the character has, but not towards every option the game provides, as the character has weaknesses which transfer to the CG. Doesnt hurt the metagame in essence.
-To actually make ICies a decent character you must learn the grab, as without it you will fail at competitive Icies. Have to use it if you are Icies to be good basically.
-Icies option of them using CG's doesnt always put them at advantage against every character. Simply knowing that your opponents main goal is a grab actually allows strategies and characters that works against it to flourish.

Basically they dont break the metagame, need the technique to survive against better characters, and it allows them to have mostly have postive matchups, but multiple bad ones and even ones exist. Its a 1/3 thing.

MK
-Trumps all other options (or at least goes even)
-Entire metagame is based around who can fight with MK
-Going with the above, you must assume that all other players know of this stratagy and will copy it
-Logically, you would never be at a disadvantage for maining MK as his playstyle is flexable/forgiving and some of his most basic moves invalidate matchups.


Sorry for going off on a rant, but this is once again one of the reasons why stuff such as wobbling and CG are accepted in the competitive sense, though disliked, while at the same time stuff like MK,Stalling or Planking, and the Freeze Glitch are always considered banned or unacceptable.

Nah you're right. As a Fox player, that's the only match I can personally comment on. I'm sure this example exists for other characters as well. (I actually remember hearing that Yoshi had a pretty good matchup against MK at one point)

My point is that Pika's CG (and a couple other techs) have rendered Fox nonviable for tournament use. Because of this, his metagame has suffered, and we have no idea what he could have been, had the CG's not existed. The matchup chart (correctly) lists him with ~3 bad matchups, iirc (IC's, Pika, and Sheik)... and then he's got mostly even or favorable matchups against most of the top and high tier, so without those 3, he could have easily been a great tournament option. But those three have killed his viability, and thus people don't play him.

Contrast this with MK, who is played by hundreds or thousands of players in tournaments... which character is going to have a deeper, more known metagame?


My only point is that MK could easily have bad matchups that we don't know about because most of the characters in the game have been relatively un-cultivated - mainly because of the "bad" tactics that I listed above (i.e. Marth, DDD, IC's, Snake, and Falco have essentially shielded MK from his potentially bad matchups by utterly destroying the metagame of most of the characters in the game, but those 5 are all "countered" by MK)

Well thats what happens in every fighting game. I play Jiggs/DK in 64, Icies/Ganon in Melee, and Icies/Pikachu/Ness in Brawl. I absolutely hated Pika in 64, accepted Fox in Melee, and hate MK in Brawl.

But it is very unlikely that through the years players havnt found a character that can reliably put a MK player in a disadvantageous position just by chosing the character, same goes with nearly every fighting game character that has no bad matchups.

 

[mimgrim]

First off, everything discussed here is in a competitive sense, as banning characters or tactics only matters in high level play. You cant use any other reasoning.

If you want to use that definition of game breaking, nearly every single thing that removes control from you the player while still allowing your opponent to move is game breaking. I guess every single grab or near/guaranteed combo is gamebreaking. Yours seems purely based on objective fairness.

Except when you are grabbed you are still playing. You mashing buttons to try to get out of the grab meaning you are still playing meaning you still have a little bit of control, if not much. Rarely is a combo 100% guaranteed (at least in Smash, I don't ahve any experience in other fighting games) as there is usually always some kind of option you can take to try and get out, meaning you still have a little bit of control. Meaning they aren't game breaking. They aren't even close to near unplayable.

In reality, the terms broken and gamebreaking are almost interchangeable.

Most people use a definition for gamebreaking as like:
"A controversial element of gameplay that unexpectedly trumps all other elements/characters/tactics if used. It is not cheating, depending on who you ask. A Game Breaker may be a legitimate element of the game used in an unintended way. Contests are decided less by a player's skill and strategy, and more by whether they use the Game Breaker in question."

The only thing the Icies CG has in common with this definition is that
-CGing is controversial
-CGing is an element of the game used in an unintended way

CGing in itself is a technique that requires setup and you cant "mindlessly" grab people or rush. Dont get grabbed is a legit stratagy simplified. The character itself has weaknessed which become weaknesses of the techniques setup. Icies having this ability isnt dominating the game itself either.

I am NOT talking about CGs in general, but infinite CGs and infinites in general. CGs that do not lead 0 to death are not game breaking as they don't leave a single player not being able to play for an idefinte time. Non-infinite CGs are broken (to an extent, though not as big as other things), but infinite CGs and pretty much any other infinite are game breaking. And infinite CGs and other infinites fall under most of those terms. And the term you say most people use for gamebreaking is what broken is in reality. Heck in all honest this is the first time I have seen Gamebreaking in that sense even. Idk if that definition is common for SB or not but every other place I have been to they use the definition for broken, though the definition is bigger also. Because gamebreaking is literally breaking the game while broken is affecting the metagame menaing there are simirlarities and sometimes the intertwine but in the end they are ultimatly different. Infinities not only affect the metagame but also break the game by making it totally unplayable for at least one person for a indefinite amount time. To restate my point, infinities (this include CGs which can become infinit) are game breaking but regular CGs are not game breaking as they cannot last for a idefinite amount of time.

MK has in common:
-Mk is controversial
-MK trumps all other options if used (Or at the very least is even)
-Due to MK being superior to every other character, logically matches when people use him are in his favor assuming equal skill whilst one side doesn't use him.

MK fits the definition more commonly used to the T.

He doesn't make the game unplayable and he is not unbeatable. Meaning he is not game breaking but broken.

Compared to the usual definition of broken:
"A game object/character/strategy that is too good/bad to exist. It is so powerful/weak that it is unbalanced compared to the other options available in the game and hence breaks the game. Every winning player has to use/not use this this to be competitively successful with others using the same tactic. At the very minimum, the decision to use/not use the object/character/strategy is to reduce the opponents options to such a small degree that they will always be at a disadvantage."

Icies CG:
-Icies CG are broken towards the other options the character has, but not towards every option the game provides, as the character has weaknesses which transfer to the CG. Doesnt hurt the metagame in essence.
-To actually make ICies a decent character you must learn the grab, as without it you will fail at competitive Icies. Have to use it if you are Icies to be good basically.
-Icies option of them using CG's doesnt always put them at advantage against every character. Simply knowing that your opponents main goal is a grab actually allows strategies and characters that works against it to flourish.

Basically they dont break the metagame, need the technique to survive against better characters, and it allows them to have mostly have postive matchups, but multiple bad ones and even ones exist. Its a 1/3 thing.

MK
-Trumps all other options (or at least goes even)
-Entire metagame is based around who can fight with MK
-Going with the above, you must assume that all other players know of this stratagy and will copy it
-Logically, you would never be at a disadvantage for maining MK as his playstyle is flexable/forgiving and some of his most basic moves invalidate matchups.

And that is somewhat the rest of the definition of broken. I have never see the "breaks the game" line in the definition before and have only seen the "to good/bad to exist" line a few times before. But I would like to point out that I am not arguing against CGs in general as I believe CGs have a good concept that needs a little bit working on it. I am against infinites and this includes infinited CGs but not other CGs that are not infinite. I think misreading/misinterpting/misunderstanding happened somewhere along the line by one or both of us.

Sorry for going off on a rant, but this is once again one of the reasons why stuff such as wobbling and CG are accepted in the competitive sense, though disliked, while at the same time stuff like MK,Stalling or Planking, and the Freeze Glitch are always considered banned or unacceptable.

It no problem. lol I just think a misunderstanding happened somewhere along the line as I am only arguing against the infinite CGs, not CGs in general. CGs in general are not game breaking. But any kind of infinity, which includes infinite CGs, is game breaking. But again I think a misunderstanding happened along the line by one or both of us.

 

[[Corn]]

He doesn't make the game unplayable and he is not unbeatable. Meaning he is not game breaking but broken.


And that is somewhat the rest of the definition of broken. I have never see the "breaks the game" line in the definition before and have only seen the "to good/bad to exist" line a few times before. But I would like to point out that I am not arguing against CGs in general as I believe CGs have a good concept that needs a little bit working on it. I am against infinites and this includes infinited CGs but not other CGs that are not infinite. I think misreading/misinterpting/misunderstanding happened somewhere along the line by one or both of us.

It no problem. lol I just think a misunderstanding happened somewhere along the line as I am only arguing against the infinite CGs, not CGs in general. CGs in general are not game breaking. But any kind of infinity, which includes infinite CGs, is game breaking. But again I think a misunderstanding happened along the line by one or both of us.

I am clearly talking about Icies infinites

In a tl;dr gamebreaking at the highest level is something that is overpowered enough that the entire competitive game mindset is focused about facing it and no soft-hard counters exist. The whatever is certainly beatable though and doesnt make the game unplayable though it may be extremely difficult to defeat, it just breaks the aspect of the game that people are playing it at the level for, which is competitive. Think Jin. It is generally a very good idea to completely remove such things. MK fits this role once again but the IC grabs do not.

In a tl;dr broken at the highest level is any move/tactic that has a questionable ability that if removed/fixed will cause a large change in the gameplay of the characters/players due to a reliance on it, either negative or positive. It is usually better to leave such things alone unless they overlap or encourage gamebreaking elements.
IC chaingrabs would fall into this category

In most fighting games getting hit means an unavoidable string of hits that you have no control over. The plan is normally to not allow your opponents to have to opportunities to do so whilst at the same time trying to open them up for your own or poke them.

 

[mimgrim]

I am clearly talking about Icies infinites

In a tl;dr gamebreaking at the highest level is something that is overpowered enough that the entire competitive game mindset is focused about facing it and no soft-hard counters exist. The whatever is certainly beatable though and doesnt make the game unplayable though it may be extremely difficult to defeat, it just breaks the aspect of the game that people are playing it at the level for, which is competitive. Think Jin. It is generally a very good idea to completely remove such things. MK fits this role once again but the IC grabs do not.

In a tl;dr broken at the highest level is any move/tactic that has a questionable ability that if removed/fixed will cause a large change in the gameplay of the characters/players due to a reliance on it, either negative or positive. It is usually better to leave such things alone unless they overlap or encourage gamebreaking elements.
IC chaingrabs would fall into this category

In most fighting games getting hit means an unavoidable string of hits that you have no control over. The plan is normally to not allow your opponents to have to opportunities to do so whilst at the same time trying to open them up for your own or poke them.

What you keep calling gamebreaking is, to me, another part that falls under broken. At every community I have been to in the past Broken is defined as what you are calling both gamebreaking and broken. This is because when something is gamebreaking it affects more then the competiive scene in that it makes the game unplayable. You can go call infinites and combos and say they both make it where it is unplayable for one player, but this is in the end false. Combos in general shouldn't last a infinite amount of times and if any do then they should be dealt with accordingly cause anything this can last an indefinit amount of time literally breaks the game. Anything the cna last for an infinite amount of time, make the game unplayable for at least one person, or lead to an instant win is gamebreaking as those things leterally break the game.

 

[Ulti-Bman]

I agree that characters should be more balanced, but I think that people should just relax and let Sakurai do his thing. People look at things WAY too mechanically. I thought Smash Bros was supposed to a game full of versatile characters and unique fighting experience. The way you worded the thread makes it seem like you want Brawl with a few minor tweaks. I'm pretty sure Sakurai is going to completely redesign the experience and make things quirky yet fair. It's pointless to suggest a few changes here and there because Sakurai is obviously going to adjust the movesets and abilities of character in different ways. You can't use an old character model as a template for a new, completely innovated one. I'm not saying that the characters will be unrecognizable or that characters should be topsy-turvy, but rather that Sakurai will most likely give characters their own sense of individuality and allowing each and every one of those characters have their appropriate strengths and weaknesses. Simply making a character run faster or slower or giving them grab lag won't do anything but scramble the tier list even further. Well, that's my opinion at least. I could be completely wrong, but I'm sticking to this mindset.

Edit: Old can lead to new but not in one, extraordinary leap that would alter the original almost entirely.

 

[peeup]

Sakurai seriously needs to buff Brawl Mewtwo to be closer to Melee Mewtwo. I mean I know Melee Mewtwo was pretty bad, but in Brawl he was literally unplayable.

 

[[Corn]]

What you keep calling gamebreaking is, to me, another part that falls under broken. At every community I have been to in the past Broken is defined as what you are calling both gamebreaking and broken. This is because when something is gamebreaking it affects more then the competiive scene in that it makes the game unplayable. You can go call infinites and combos and say they both make it where it is unplayable for one player, but this is in the end false. Combos in general shouldn't last a infinite amount of times and if any do then they should be dealt with accordingly cause anything this can last an indefinit amount of time literally breaks the game. Anything the cna last for an infinite amount of time, make the game unplayable for at least one person, or lead to an instant win is gamebreaking as those things literally break the game.

Most people have no idea what the terms mean. IC CGs do not make the game unplayable, they make the game temporarily unavailable to one side. Would you rather just getting grabbed by IC and it does and immediate 120%? You cant stall with them either because rules exist to prevent that. Completely disregarding the events up until the grab is what makes them gamebreaking to you.
Just because one side isnt in control at the moment doesn't make something gamebreaking. If we played 1 match per set with 1 stock without a counterpick system they would be gamebreaking and broken, but with the current ruleset and system, they are not.

You have probably never played 64, as that games characters all had 0-death combos, grab release infinites, and mechanics that made the game "unplayable" from one side when being hit"


And nothing but the competitive scene matters when discussing issues like this, as other levels of play have nearly no concept of balance or how fun is second to competition. At low levels the terms are thrown around willy nilly without concern. I believe in the first year a large majority of casual players called Ike both gamebreaking and broken due to his KO potential without even understanding how idiotic that sounds.

 

[TheWhiteBowser]

This thread is dumb as ****.

You can't look at characters or mechanics in a nut shell, even if they ported every character 1:1 with their hitboxes, damage, and knockback distances/angles intact 100% (which they won't, they're not even using they previous ones for reference) from any Smash game the viability of every character would be flipped all around just because of the universal physics changes. And they're not, characters are being done from near complete scratch and any single move could completely change the flow of a character (see Brawl Bowser's Up-B, or Melee Peach's DSmash, or 64 Falcon's Uair). And even within these characters and technicalities game balance changes completely as people find out new tech over time, even ST the million year old game has made some pretty heavy changes to its tier list this year (see T.Hawk). And to top it all off most people in this thread aren't at a high enough level of play where character effectiveness and matchups won't drastically change as they get better.

tl;dr This thread is dumb as ****.

Spoiler

Anyways... I am very happy this thread is getting a lot of attention. I am very happy I made a good thread where people can have very advanced discussions about Smash Bros.
Keep the conversation going and ignore the haters. I have read this entire thread many times and I like what I'm reading a lot. So let's keep discussing this topic.
If I may though... Could we stop talking about CG's maybe for just half a page? Please?

 

[[Corn]]

Anyways... I am very happy this thread is getting a lot of attention. I am very happy I made a good thread where people can have very advanced discussions about Smash Bros.
Keep the conversation going and ignore the haters. I have read this entire thread many times and I like what I'm reading a lot. So let's keep discussing this topic.
If I may though... Could we stop talking about CG's maybe for just half a page? Please?

Im not exactly interested in discussing the relevance of CG controversy.
I do take issue with terms or phrases being misused or misunderstood by others, so I try to logically lay everything out in the hopes to teach or even learn something myself. As soon as the topic becomes subjective, which it seems to be heading, Ill drop it if it cant be furthered


Regardless the main things I would have fixed are:
-Phantom Hitboxes
-Pivot grabs in a sense
-Buffing slow tether grabs....looking at you link
-In general adding more killing moves that arent smashes
-Magnet ledges, as in you are 20 feet away and grab the ledge. I have no issue with being able to grab the edge when not facing it.

 

[Ulevo]

I didn't read all the material on posts about chain grabs, grab releases, and infinites, but here's my two cents on the matter.

Chain grabs in Melee were okay. There are many reasons for this, but it boils down to a couple of key factors. The first one is that you could DI throws. This meant that your opponent had to either predict or react properly to your DI to get the follow up. It also meant that if your DI was good enough, the grabs stopped at a certain point. The characters that had the chain grab go up to the highest were typically the fast fallers, and this was a natural trait they had to offset their otherwise incredible on stage game. It balanced itself. The other thing about being able to DI the grabs meant was that as long as you weren't on Final Destination, you could DI towards a platform and end the CG. In Brawl obviously this wasn't the case because half the grabs that are problematic like Falco and Dedede's have a set trajectory that lead you in to horrendously bad positions.

Grab releases didn't happen in Melee because it was actually designed properly, unlike another Smash game. All grab release techniques are is a blatant disregard for playtesting and proper consideration for the frame data on certain grab recoveries. Most characters in Brawl that can grab, release, and regrab a character can only do so because either their recovery or startup frames are too short on their grabs, or the character being grabbed has too much recovery time on their release animation. This obviously shouldn't happen, and wouldn't have if Sakurai and his crew playtested the game properly.

Infinites are dependant on context. By the way they function, I actually think the infinites performed by Brawl Ice Climbers are much better. Their execution requirement is more interesting, and more demanding as a technical character. The problem with Ice Climbers and their infinites in Brawl is not the infinite itself, it's the fact that Ice Climbers in Brawl live in a world where there are no safe offensive options, and shield and defensive options are overpowered and easy to use. Ice Climbers within infinites in Melee, at least from a balance perspective, were okay because the player had a way to deal with these things.

 

[[Corn]]

I didn't read all the material on posts about chain grabs, grab releases, and infinites, but here's my two cents on the matter.

Chain grabs in Melee were okay. There are many reasons for this, but it boils down to a couple of key factors. The first one is that you could DI throws. This meant that your opponent had to either predict or react properly to your DI to get the follow up. It also meant that if your DI was good enough, the grabs stopped at a certain point. The characters that had the chain grab go up to the highest were typically the fast fallers, and this was a natural trait they had to offset their otherwise incredible on stage game. It balanced itself. The other thing about being able to DI the grabs meant was that as long as you weren't on Final Destination, you could DI towards a platform and end the CG. In Brawl obviously this wasn't the case because half the grabs that are problematic like Falco and Dedede's have a set trajectory that lead you in to horrendously bad positions.

Grab releases didn't happen in Melee because it was actually designed properly, unlike another Smash game. All grab release techniques are is a blatant disregard for playtesting and proper consideration for the frame data on certain grab recoveries. Most characters in Brawl that can grab, release, and regrab a character can only do so because either their recovery or startup frames are too short on their grabs, or the character being grabbed has too much recovery time on their release animation. This obviously shouldn't happen, and wouldn't have if Sakurai and his crew playtested the game properly.

Infinites are dependant on context. By the way they function, I actually think the infinites performed by Brawl Ice Climbers are much better. Their execution requirement is more interesting, and more demanding as a technical character. The problem with Ice Climbers and their infinites in Brawl is not the infinite itself, it's the fact that Ice Climbers in Brawl live in a world where there are no safe offensive options, and shield and defensive options are overpowered and easy to use. Ice Climbers within infinites in Melee, at least from a balance perspective, were okay because the player had a way to deal with these things.

Regardless that is an accurate assesment. Only reason they can be considered acceptable would be if Nana was a suicidal idiot, which she just so happens to be in both games.

I cant imagine how OP Icies would be if the AI was really good.

 

[Ulevo]

Ness in Melee mind you

Did Ness have a grab release issue in Melee?

 

[[Corn]]

Did Ness have a grab release issue in Melee?

I believe I spoke to soon. I got Brawl in my Melee, my mistake.

Melee had Bowser and DK who had faster grab release recoveries. Which led to some odd things.

Ness was in Brawl, again my mistake.

 

[Ulevo]

Ah okay. I do recall Bowser having this on a couple characters in Melee, though I don't believe it led to infinites. I never knew about DK.

 

[[Corn]]

Ah okay. I do recall Bowser having this on a couple characters in Melee, though I don't believe it led to infinites. I never knew about DK.

They were just able to retaliate faster then normal. It didnt lead to infinites but it led to follow ups.

Bowser was 10 frames faster then normal and DK was 9 I believe.

 

[mimgrim]

Most people have no idea what the terms mean. IC CGs do not make the game unplayable, they make the game temporarily unavailable to one side. Would you rather just getting grabbed by IC and it does and immediate 120%? You cant stall with them either because rules exist to prevent that. Completely disregarding the events up until the grab is what makes them gamebreaking to you.
Just because one side isnt in control at the moment doesn't make something gamebreaking. If we played 1 match per set with 1 stock without a counterpick system they would be gamebreaking and broken, but with the current ruleset and system, they are not.

You have probably never played 64, as that games characters all had 0-death combos, grab release infinites, and mechanics that made the game "unplayable" from one side when being hit"


And nothing but the competitive scene matters when discussing issues like this, as other levels of play have nearly no concept of balance or how fun is second to competition. At low levels the terms are thrown around willy nilly without concern. I believe in the first year a large majority of casual players called Ike both gamebreaking and broken due to his KO potential without even understanding how idiotic that sounds.

So your telling me that every single community I have been to that uses those terms the way I described is wrong? That basically the majority is worng? yea, no thats jsut a bunch of BS right there. If you want to get techincal those terms don't even mean anything as Gamebreaking has no set definition and Broken has a whole different definition. Which leads to it being where people believe it means different things and can't agree on what it correctly means meaning there is no correct or wrong meaning to it. Lets just leave it at that.

I have played 64, but not competivily. Same goes for Melee pretty much though I have ended up reading quite a bit of it but am not really interested in it either. I have only recently gotten into competitive Smash and am only interested in Brawl's competitve scene and I've read quite a bit up on it. But I don't get what you are getting at. How does something in a pass game have to do with this? Just because those types of things were in a older game doesn't mean they still aren't *insert term of your choice here* and I'm pretty sure those things have become less and less in each new Smash game, which says something about in itself.

In every other competitve scene I have been in when talking about OP things in the metagame the term broken was always used. Gamebreaking was a different thing in of itself from broken, despite having slight similarities and sometimes intertwining at certain points.

 

[[Corn]]

So your telling me that every single community I have been to that uses those terms the way I described is wrong? That basically the majority is worng? yea, no thats jsut a bunch of BS right there. If you want to get techincal those terms don't even mean anything as Gamebreaking has no set definition and Broken has a whole different definition. Which leads to it being where people believe it means different things and can't agree on what it correctly means meaning there is no correct or wrong meaning to it. Lets just leave it at that.

I have played 64, but not competivily. Same goes for Melee pretty much though I have ended up reading quite a bit of it but am not really interested in it either. I have only recently gotten into competitive Smash and am only interested in Brawl's competitve scene and I've read quite a bit up on it. But I don't get what you are getting at. How does something in a pass game have to do with this? Just because those types of things were in a older game doesn't mean they still aren't *insert term of your choice here* and I'm pretty sure those things have become less and less in each new Smash game, which says something about in itself.

In every other competitve scene I have been in when talking about OP things in the metagame the term broken was always used. Gamebreaking was a different thing in of itself from broken, despite having slight similarities and sometimes intertwining at certain points.

Hey, you said this

You can go call infinites and combos and say they both make it where it is unplayable for one player, but this is in the end false. Combos in general shouldn't last a infinite amount of times and if any do then they should be dealt with accordingly cause anything this can last an indefinit amount of time literally breaks the game. Anything the cna last for an infinite amount of time, make the game unplayable for at least one person, or lead to an instant win is gamebreaking as those things leterally break the game.

In order to understand a term, you must understand how it is used at all levels and from all viewpoints. Due to the terms being blanket terms more then anything, group things into harmful to the metagame and non harmful then. That will clear up everything. Also disregard the factor fun involved, as subjective things shouldnt be factored in.

If the communities you come from arent structured for competitive play, the terms are generally used out of context. If you start playing multiple games altogether you see that the term is so variable that you disregard the majority, which is usually the casual base, because usually it is playing a completely separate game then the one being discussed.

 

[BADGRAPHICS]

The concepts of "buffing" or "nerfing" any abilities characters had in Brawl isn't relevant to Smash 4.
For all you know, they could remake MK exactly as he is now, and he could be totally pants in the next game, due to any number of factors.

 

[peeup]

Dear everyone,
In Brawl, ICs have an infinite grab shenanigan that deals no damage, and therefore can bypass the 300% stalling rule.
In Melee, ICs have an infinite grab shenanigan that deals damage, but there is no rule in place that prevents them from doing so.
Pardon my French, but who the H*CK thinks that this is not completely stupid?
Infinites shouldn't exist, straight up. Chain grabs should exist, straight up. They should rely on predicting and/or reading with extreme precision the DI of your opponent.
Infinites break the game. Smash is a 2 player game. You must outplay your opponent in order to win. With infinites, Smash becomes a 1 player game. You must repeat a set string of button inputs in order to win. If you think that this is a good idea, go play Guitar Hero. Smash is a game where your opponent's actions change what you do. Infinites are not Smash.

Sincerely,
Peeup

 

[Nick Schovitz]

Zero Suit Samus's gun was ass in Brawl. That needs a buff.

 

[Ulevo]

So your telling me that every single community I have been to that uses those terms the way I described is wrong? That basically the majority is worng? yea, no thats jsut a bunch of BS right there. If you want to get techincal those terms don't even mean anything as Gamebreaking has no set definition and Broken has a whole different definition. Which leads to it being where people believe it means different things and can't agree on what it correctly means meaning there is no correct or wrong meaning to it. Lets just leave it at that.

I have played 64, but not competivily. Same goes for Melee pretty much though I have ended up reading quite a bit of it but am not really interested in it either. I have only recently gotten into competitive Smash and am only interested in Brawl's competitve scene and I've read quite a bit up on it. But I don't get what you are getting at. How does something in a pass game have to do with this? Just because those types of things were in a older game doesn't mean they still aren't *insert term of your choice here* and I'm pretty sure those things have become less and less in each new Smash game, which says something about in itself.

In every other competitve scene I have been in when talking about OP things in the metagame the term broken was always used. Gamebreaking was a different thing in of itself from broken, despite having slight similarities and sometimes intertwining at certain points.

Outside of the semantics issue you're having with him, I think what he's trying to tell you is that it all depends on the context of the situation. Things are not broken in isolation, but with their interaction with the environment they are in.

Marvel vs Capcom 3 is an example of this. Now, I am not personally a player, nor am I incredibly inclined on the game. But I do know that infinites in MvC3 are generally accepted and fairly hype amongst competitive gamers. This is due to the environment the infinites exist in. They don't ruin the game, and in this case, they actually provide some form of fun and entertainment.

However, in a case like Brawl, which is not only different from MvC3, but also very different from the previous two Smash games, its very different. The infinites in Brawl competitively distort the quality of the competitive experience because the game doesn't give you the tools to deal with it adequately, and it is very punishing to the player. The risk vs reward ratio is not balanced, and it often leads to horrendously bad match ups.

So this is important to keep in mind. Something with a 'broken' tag wont' always be broken in any environment or situation its placed in. Meta Knight might be broken in Brawl for example, but that isn't to say he would be broken if he was placed in another Smash game, or another fighter.