I may be missing your point as well-
Hopefully this post further clarifies this for you and others.
but there are lots of moves in this game that have to be countered and responded to in vastly different ways.
This is true, however fundamental skills are still the skills used to counter such moves (for clarification: you may counter move “A” differently than move “B” but the skills used to counter them are the same). Furthermore, how the counterplay is restrictive (and to what degree) determines whether a problem exists design wise. Certain skills should never be restricted in certain ways during the neutral.
You can shield grab Bowser's dash attack similar to many other moves. As you said before, you can't shield grab Roy down tilt.
This is not correct. You can shield grab Roy’s down tilt if it was improperly spaced much like most moves. You can also interact with Roy’s d tilt just like any other nonprojectile attack without armor by counter hitting it, or whiff punishing it. Spacing and timing (it might be easier to think of this as precision and accuracy) are key aspects of fundamental skills that are being followed here.
Does that imply that Roy doesn't follow the game's fundamentals?
No. You’re misunderstanding the term “fundamentals.” "Fundamentals" refer to a specific set of fighting game skills (such as spacing and timing) that also happens to be one of the key factors that separates higher level players from lower level players.
Although knowledge of the properties of “x” (anything whether it’s an attack, or something about the mechanics) wouldn’t necessarily be included here, knowledge of “x” is necessary to play at high level in the game you are playing. Without such knowledge, one can’t determine what options they are covering during the neutral and what options their opponent is covering. It would make it quite difficult to know what would be the best course of action.
I think this is where the misunderstanding is occurring. I am implying that the current armor implementation is problematic (design wise) because of how it ignores certain fundamental skills during neutral even when the knowledge of the properties are known. The key here is that should both players know exactly how the armor works (on specific options that are causing the problems), then the player fighting against it is then forced to play in a way that heavily restricts their options (given that both players are playing optimally).
If you understand the full meaning of the first two paragraphs of my first post that explains how the neutral works, then it should be apparent how restrictive such armor implementation is, when attempting to cover for such an option.
In a game with as many options as Smash offers, high level play imo is recognizing properties of moves, choosing the correct response, and executing on it.
Yes, this is indicative of high level play, however this is a result of fundamental skills being used together with the knowledge of “x” (your characters, mechanics, etc.). Having knowledge isn’t a “skill.” Utilizing knowledge properly is.
At an optimal level of play, both players will have the knowledge needed to compete in the match and so the player with the better skills should be the winner (hence the importance of fundamentals). In essence, fundamentals play a huge part of higher level play.
Removing the middle step would ignore much more of the "skill factor" of the game.
If by the middle step you mean “choosing the correct response,” then no, removing the “middle step” does not occur in the example you have given, or in mine.
The middle step (“choosing the correct response”) against specific armor properties (in terms of optimal play) is to play in a significantly limited way (essentially grab or camp) which is the problem.
Just because a move's counterplay is different doesn't mean it's unhealthy.
This part is true, but as explained previously, fundamental skill is still what should be being tested in counterplay.
As long as the counterplay is there (and it has proper risk vs reward), it can be reasonably adapted to and beaten.
This part is not true. Depending on how the counterplay is restrictive and to the degree that it is, determines whether it is healthy or not. Even if the character is balanced around it, such that he can be reliably beaten, it doesn’t mean that it is not poor game design (hence Bowser in this case). Certain previous designs in past PM builds are also perfect examples of this.
Doesn't sound like we disagree meaningfully at all - as I've been fighting for exactly this stuff for quite a while now.
Indeed.
