Toning up heavies

[Gea]

While technically heavier than average, I don't think anyone considers any character below Link a heavyweight.


I also don't really understand the emphasis on weight outright, because the issue with the characters is more that they are slow/lacking options than their actual weight (which isn't even including the importance of fallspeed). Falcon is a heavy character, but he certainly isn't fat and his weaknesses do not stem from his weight class (or have any bearing on them, really. His fallspeed helps him tremendously even if he gets comboed easily).

I don't even see what a "higher power" glass canon is when low tier offensive options all pale to the characters above them, even from a standpoint of pure power.

 

[Ultimate kaos]

I do believe that link and a few others should be toned up a bit in the next game. Link could definitely use the defensive power. And maybe a little less lag on his attacks, or like previously stated, some super armour on a few of his attacks

 

[Kink-Link5]

While technically heavier than average, I don't think anyone considers any character below Link a heavyweight.


I also don't really understand the emphasis on weight outright, because the issue with the characters is more that they are slow/lacking options than their actual weight (which isn't even including the importance of fallspeed). Falcon is a heavy character, but he certainly isn't fat and his weaknesses do not stem from his weight class (or have any bearing on them, really. His fallspeed helps him tremendously even if he gets comboed easily).

I don't even see what a "higher power" glass canon is when low tier offensive options all pale to the characters above them, even from a standpoint of pure power.

Yeah, my biggest issue with Master Knight DH's model here is that it doesn't make a lick of sense concerning how the characters are inherently designed.

But it's cool we all front sometimes.

 

[-LzR-]

More like Brawl has failed to address heavies' problems better.

Let's look at the tier list for Melee:
*4 heavies in C Tier or above, including Captain Falcon (naturally), Ganondorf (naturally), and Dr. Mario.
*1 heavy in D Tier too, this time at the bottom. Surprisingly, though, regular Mario is there too.
*All of the higher power Glass Cannons are, again, below D Tier.
*Of course, there's only 4 heavier-than-standard characters, Melee didn't have too many heavies to begin with.

Brawl has Snake, Wario and Dedede as hightiers. All these characters are about as heavy as Captain Falcon is in Melee and Dedede is comparable to Ganondorf in Melee.
Why are you considering Doc heavy btw?

 

[Gea]

Probably because he is higher than the average Melee weight (tied with Mario in NTSC and Luigi in both games). Average weight is Peach/Zelda/Sheik. Floatiness makes Peach seem lighter than she is. He likely looked at a weight list and took everyone from middle up as "heavy."

 

[grizby2]

i think all DH wants is for heavy characters to be a tad less aproachable.
DH, please correct me if that is false.
i think its only fair, since most of the heavy characters only offer two things: high damage/knockback, and more wieght (which is supposed to help them survive longer).
Ironically, we got characters that were horrifically prone to combos/links DUE to their heavy nature. and then we have moves that they cant execute in time because they either
1. flinch from another move (which is about like 98% of all moves)
or
2. take massive amounts of accurate prediction.

then just add Character size...

yes, they do have SOME quick moves that they can use, but id like it if i didn't have to rely on them 24/7. :\

 

[Biz_R_0]

Here's my main problem with weights in general; they don't make that much of a difference unless you're really heavy (~110+) or really light (~80-). I think this stems from the weight diversity being pretty much a sliding scale with two significant exceptions (Jigglypuff and Bowser). My solution is dividing the characters into three weight classes, setting a 10 point weight limit for those classes, and then putting a 10 point gap between each weight class, with maybe two or three outlying characters per class. "Lightweight" characters would be 80-, "Middleweight" characters would be between 90-100, and "Heavyweight" characters would be 110+. This way, characters would still have unique individual weight values, but heavys will now have an advantage due to their weight aside from living for another 4%, and the reverse for lights.

It doesn't have to be exactly those numbers, though, it's the idea that matters.

edit: These are the weight values I'm using.

 

[Big-Cat]

Narrowing down the weight range is another possibility. Possibly keeping it at a range of 80-110 instead of Brawl's 68-120.

You have to ask yourself though, do we need a wide range of weight values for the roster, or will this over complicate things in the long run?

 

[Biz_R_0]

I think it would actually simplify things because you'd have 3 distinct groups instead of 40-50 individual weights that slightly vary from one to the other. Although, I think your idea would make weight less of a factor.

 

[Mr.Jackpot]

Why are people trying to balance characters that don't exist yet?

 

[Biz_R_0]

Why are people trying to balance characters that don't exist yet?

It's not like there are already heavy characters in the game. Nope, this is an entirely new mechanic.

 

[Gea]

But weight (and fallspeed) are variables that are only important when paired up with the rest of the engine and properties of say, movesets.

Of all the things worth discussing, weightclasses really aren't too important because a character's weight has no real bearing with their mobility.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I'm talking about the survival factor of weight that is (at least in my eyes) supposed to be one of the mechanic's main properties. I don't think that the potential for survival is a very big factor in the weight mechanic unless you're at one of the ends of the spectrum.

Although, if you're proposing that the properties of moves should be changed in order to make heavy characters live longer, I'd be curious as to what exactly you would do.

 

[Big-Cat]

Here's another suggestion. What if moves had their knockback reduced greatly? Crazy, I know, but I'm just tossing things out.

 

[Biz_R_0]

That would be horrible for multiple reasons, but it wouldn't help with weight at all because the characters would still have the same differences in knockback.

 

[Gea]

I'd like to remind you within your assessment that floatiness/fallspeed does a LOT to survivability. Falco/Fox/Falcon vs Peach/Jiggs/Samus. Look at how heavy Samus is but how early she dies off the top. Falcon is a chunk less heavy than Bowser but he is the toughest to kill off the top.

Having recoveries and "safety" options will do more to help a character live longer than anything else, too. Part of the reason the space animals live so damn long is that they can mix up their recoveries extremely well. Other characters that have some heft still die relatively low %s frequently because poor or linear recoveries mean better gimps (Think about DK, hell even GW has a pretty bad recovery from the standpoint of mixups. At least in Melee). Just account for these and characters who are super light or combo-fodder heavy can benefit from having tools more apt to surviving than some other characters like Marth.

 

[Biz_R_0]

I know all of this. My point is that weight doesn't make enough of a difference. Falling speed, gravity, and recovery are all important, but my point is that weight is underpowered in that department. For example, Ness and Wolf really don't die horizontally at significantly further percents from one another, despite them being 8 weight values apart and having about equal quality recoveries. In this case, weight would be the most important factor in determining who would live longer. Despite this, Ness would probably only die at 5-6% less from most horizontal finishers than Wolf. Unlike with Falcon and Samus, where Samus actually weighs more than Falcon but with falling speeds at opposite ends of the spectrum, where Samus would die much earlier to vertical finishers than Falcon.

 

[Gea]

But weight isn't a great factor for that because it just means characters who die later also get comboed for free. At least how the games work currently.

 

[Biz_R_0]

it just means characters who die later also get comboed for free.

You have just described word for word how the weight mechanic is supposed to work. However, my problem that only the latter is true in most cases. Although, I have been thinking of a system where the more hits you do in a combo, the stronger weak moves get and vice versa. That would not only reduce the disadvantage in being heavier, but allow for more hitstun without the potential for gimping combos.

 

[Gea]

I think you're really underplaying how much getting comboed for free hurts characters, even if they die 20% later. If your killmoves can be reliably landed and it is fairly easy to stack % on you...

I mean in a game where dying at 100% isn't unheard of, 20% is a big difference. And if a lighter character does reliably live longer, it isn't because weight helped them sustain the hit so much as their light weight makes combos at higher % harder. It is a quirk of the % system that isn't going to ever vanish, nor does it really need to as long as characters have the tools they need to not be embarrassed.

 

[Biz_R_0]

That's a good point, although, like I said, it already happens. Do you think the knockback scaling thing I suggested would help with that?

I mean in a game where dying at 100% isn't unheard of

Yeah, if you're playing a super lightweight character and suck at DI.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I think you're really underplaying how much getting comboed for free hurts characters, even if they die 20% later. If your killmoves can be reliably landed and it is fairly easy to stack % on you...

I mean in a game where dying at 100% isn't unheard of, 20% is a big difference. And if a lighter character does reliably live longer, it isn't because weight helped them sustain the hit so much as their light weight makes combos at higher % harder. It is a quirk of the % system that isn't going to ever vanish, nor does it really need to as long as characters have the tools they need to not be embarrassed.

Can you agree with something more than 100%?

I think I manged here.


Really though, addressing the issues with bad characters first means examining the actual problems they have. If a character gets gimped that "weakness" doesn't really exist as long as the character has a strong enough neutral game or is generally just really good (Olimar, Marth, Falco, Doctor Mario, etc.). The same applies to other non-weaknesses including light weight, susceptibility to combos, and low damage output. Plenty of characters have been made and given the proper tools as characters to overcome their "Weaknesses" that really mean nothing if the character can avoid situations where that weakness shows itself.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Really though, addressing the issues with bad characters first means examining the actual problems they have.

I see the point you're making here, and it's definitely a very good one, but we were referring to the mechanic in general, not specific characters. There are good characters that suffer from being heavy but not heavy enough (Wario, ROB if you consider him "good"), and bad characters that benefit from being light but not too light (Zelda, Sheik if you consider her "bad"). Although, the amount of characters that fit these descriptions are very few.

 

[Gea]

Sorry, to be clear I was talking about Melee, not Brawl when referencing the 100% kill range. Kill % is more varied in Brawl because getting your killing move to land is a bit more variable than Melee which has common throws -> kill moves or just 1-2 combos that can land the hit, along with being higher in general due to DI being twice as effective and stale moves negating knockback.

As for your idea, I'm unsure. Like many other things I would have to see it (properly) executed within the frame of the game to nod in agreement or not. It would very easily backfire and everyone lives forever or select few characters will reliably kill at lower %s before their knockback is gimped if I am understanding what you are proposing.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Sorry, to be clear I was talking about Melee, not Brawl when referencing the 100% kill range. Kill % is more varied in Brawl because getting your killing move to land is a bit more variable than Melee which has common throws -> kill moves or just 1-2 combos that can land the hit, along with being higher in general due to DI being twice as effective and stale moves negating knockback.

As for your idea, I'm unsure. Like many other things I would have to see it (properly) executed within the frame of the game to nod in agreement or not. It would very easily backfire and everyone lives forever or select few characters will reliably kill at lower %s before their knockback is gimped if I am understanding what you are proposing.

At the begining of a game's lifespan, this is usually the case- whoever can kill easiest, fastest, is used most, and whoever lacks damage output is (usually) not used at all.

It sort of approaches the "Characters with the fastest, safest, best moves and best neutral games" in the long run though, even if they're only doing 2% with every move or whatever.

It's just a matter of what traits have a real effect on the game in the long run. Health/damage output become the least important things unless like, every character is otherwise identical, where in damage output and health are the only differences to use as a reference point.

This is obviously assuming the vacuum where every character has an identical moveset or can be accurately described as having all equally strong tools as one another, which is the goal with a competitive game in the first place- to give each character an equal fighting chance.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Sorry, to be clear I was talking about Melee, not Brawl when referencing the 100% kill range. Kill % is more varied in Brawl because getting your killing move to land is a bit more variable than Melee which has common throws -> kill moves or just 1-2 combos that can land the hit, along with being higher in general due to DI being twice as effective and stale moves negating knockback.

Also Melee lets you gimp and edgeguard harder. I'm referring to getting hit with a strong move at a high percent.

It would very easily backfire and everyone lives forever or select few characters will reliably kill at lower %s before their knockback is gimped if I am understanding what you are proposing.

I have no idea why you'd assume this, unless you missed the part about it only applying to combos.

It's just a matter of what traits have a real effect on the game in the long run. Health/damage output become the least important things unless like, every character is otherwise identical, where in damage output and health are the only differences to use as a reference point.

This is the problem my suggestion is intended to fix.

edit: In other news, my sig only works when I quote people for some reason.

 

[Gea]

Your signature appears only when your message is physically large enough. Quoting takes up quite a bit of space.

Yeah I didn't really see the part with it applying to combos. Most combos even in Melee into a killmove are pretty short, but even then I think DI is a way better mechanic for the series than any sort of combo-changing system, including this one. Still dunno what this would solve or the problem it would be solving. And I know your stance on edgeguarding, but I view it as a positive. Different opinions. Edgeguarding aside, Melee still let you kill to the blastzone with DI at 100%, though it depends on the move, which blastzone, stage, etc. Even if you wanted to go to 120%, an extra 20% between weight classes is a big deal. 20% between characters because of weight is still pretty large in this context.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Yes, different opinions, but I think you're viewing this from a purely Melee standpoint whereas I'm viewing it as a completely different game. I think we can safely say that Smash 4 won't be Melee 2 (Sakurai literally stated this).

Yeah I didn't really see the part with it applying to combos. Most combos even in Melee into a killmove are pretty short. Still dunno what this would solve or the problem it would be solving.

The part about weak moves becoming stronger would stop heavys from being comboed easily. The part about strong moves becoming weaker will prevent characters being comboed off the stage and gimped by a high damage move. This scaling will immediately disappear after hitstun wears off completely, therefore restricting it to combos.

 

[Gea]

But the only places in the series where this would be relevant is Smash 64 and then Melee. Heavies suffered most in Brawl due to framedata (and combos were so short this would only come into play a few times in the Brawl world). I guess all that aside, my big question to you is that since it is a vague concept, would that mean killing characters out of a combo would be more or less discouraged, and that singular killing moves or gimps would be the way to go?

But yeah you are 100% right. Whatever Smash 4 is, it probably will be it's own unique flavor and as always, this discussion is irrelevant.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Most combos aren't combos in Smash though. Even consistent things like Falcon d-throw-> fair only work because his fair comes out before the opponent's Double Jump goes anywhere or their move comes out. It isn't a real combo, and would work around the proposed mechanic completely.

 

[Biz_R_0]

Most combos aren't combos in Smash though. Even consistent things like Falcon d-throw-> fair only work because his fair comes out before the opponent's Double Jump goes anywhere or their move comes out. It isn't a real combo, and would work around the proposed mechanic completely.

In that case, the mechanic probably wouldn't have stopped the KO, because for them to be off the stage they'd have to start on the edge of the stage., and they couldn't have gone that far off before the knee.

my big question to you is that since it is a vague concept, would that mean killing characters out of a combo would be more or less discouraged, and that singular killing moves or gimps would be the way to go?

Singular killing moves, absolutely. That was kinda the whole point. Gimping would be discouraged, though.

 

[Gea]

I really dislike that but that's pretty much all that I can say about it. I do not prefer it. Thanks for the clarification, though. Appreciated.

 

[Biz_R_0]

And I appreciate your responses.

edit: although I don't think we came to a conclusion on the issue of "weight classes".

edit2: also remember that the combos would make weak moves stronger, removing or at least lowering the issue of heavys getting hard comboed.