"Ultra Meters": Proof of Concept Query

[Jack Kieser]

We all know that Final Smashes needs some work, PAC-wise, but the way we acquire them seems to kill that notion before it's even considered. However, it's pretty well regarded that the "Ultra Combo" system from SF4/SSF4 works pretty well and is relatively fair.

I would like to request that someone with PSA knowledge (I have none) test out this proof of concept for a "Ultra Meter", of sorts, in Brawl... using the Wario Waft as a base.

TEST 1: Turn the "Atomic Waft" into "Warioman"

This test will allow us to figure out if it's even possible to award a Final Smash to someone within the parameters of a move. Right now, the Wario Waft has varying degrees of charge, ending with the huge "Atomic Waft". This, I assume, is based off of a variable that controls charge amount over time, and when the charge amount hits a certain point, pressing Down-B activates the large waft, instead of the small one; this variable also controls when Wario starts to flash brown.

Simply, try to change the move so that when the charge variable hits the point when the "Atomic Waft" would usually be available, a Final Smash is awarded. Activation via B would be optimal, but activation via Down-B is fine as well.

TEST 2: Change the new "Ultra Meter" activation requirement to a variable based on damage taken.

This test will allow us to figure out whether we can voluntarily award a Final Smash to a player based on taking a preset amount of damage, much how SF4 awards an Ultra Combo to a highly damaged player. For test purposes, attempt to award a Final Smash to a player that has accumulated 150% damage during a match. Also, attempt to award a Final Smash to a player that has lost 2 stock during a match; optimally, these two activation parameters will not stack, but do what must be done.

TEST 3: Port Wario's new "Ultra Meter" to Mario

This test will allow us to figure out if we can give a Wario-based Ultra Meter to any character, which is the main goal here. Make it so that Mario will be awarded a Final Smash in 150% damage increments (or 2 stocks lost), activated by pressing B, as would a normal Final Smash.

Bonus points for if you can add a incremental flashing effect, like the Waft, so that players can gauge charge amount visually.

Post here if you have any questions, comments, or test info. Thanks to all those who know PSA / coding.

 

[God of Humility]

Giving an advantage to someone because they are taking damage or losing stocks is counter-competitive. Its like rewarding people because they are losing. The only thing it will achieve is giving a chance for the worst players to win against the best.

Besides, I think your idea is impossible as of now.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well... tell that to SF4, like I said in the OP; they do it (Ultras are usually better / more damaging than Supers), and they're doing pretty well, competitively speaking.

Either way, is there a PSA-hacking expert who can comment?

 

[Turbo Ether]

This would be sick. You'd obviously have to rebalance the Final Smashs, though. Good luck with this.

 

[Kitamerby]

Giving an advantage to someone because they are taking damage or losing stocks is counter-competitive. Its like rewarding people because they are losing. The only thing it will achieve is giving a chance for the worst players to win against the best.

Besides, I think your idea is impossible as of now.

Hello, my name is Lucario. What was that you were saying?

 

[Jack Kieser]

This would be sick. You'd obviously have to rebalance the Final Smashs, though. Good luck with this.

Obviously, but I think if there were a way to actually change the FS acquisition process, projects like BB or Brawl+/- would be more willing to take the time to rebalance the Final Smashes themselves.

...especially if there were a standardized code block you could add to a Neutral special that would work on all characters. Code it up right, copy/paste, and BOOM! Automatic Ultra meter.

That would rock.

Also, lol. Yes, I totally forgot that Lucario already works off of this basic principle: take damage, do damage. I also remember reading in a PSA thread I lurked a while back that it was harder to detect when you do damage than when you take damage or something. Don't know if it's still true.

 

[sunshade]

Giving an advantage to someone because they are taking damage or losing stocks is counter-competitive. Its like rewarding people because they are losing. The only thing it will achieve is giving a chance for the worst players to win against the best.

Besides, I think your idea is impossible as of now.

Giving an advantage to someone losing is not always counter-competitive. We play with three stocks which means if you lose the first stock we are giving you a chance to try and regain the lead. Would you say playing with multiple stocks is counter competitive? It is giving a losing player another chance at victory despite making a mistake, is that not a reward for failure?

Super meters work the same way. They provide an advantage to losing players so that the leading player cannot easily get to the point in which their lead becomes so large it is impossible for them to lose. It forces the leading player to continue to be cautious of the opponent still having the ability to regain control but it also rewards the winning player due to them receiving meter faster than their opponent.

@jack: hehe my bad I reread the OP and noticed that I miss understood what you wrote at first. I thought you were saying that Wario's fart was based on damage but you were saying it should be changed to that >.> reading comprehension powers activate.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Yeah, that's why changing that "time taken" code to "damage taken" is the whole of test 2. I wasn't sure if that was possible, or if you'd have to code that from scratch, though, so I put it in there as a test. Either way, yes, I'm aware that the Waft is time based.

 

[shanus]

This is something that Dantarion and I thought about a lot. Simply put, the methods your propose are not suitable tests, nor truthfully useful to synthesize a true super meter.

Additionally, why reward a super meter for damage received, and not damage dealt which decays over time?

I know how to do most of what is described here, but there are some technical limitations beyond what is currently understood.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, it's cool to know that this has been thought about before.

The difference between "damage taken" and "damage received" is a trivial one, as far as I can see; it's a philosophical difference (should it be a "Super Meter" or an "Ultra Meter"), and the code required to change from one to the other is menial, to the extent of my knowledge. If this is one of the technical limitations you spoke about, I'd be interested to know why it's such a limitation. If not, it's still something I'd like to see tested; an "Ultra Meter", as opposed to a "Super Meter", would be more along the lines of what FS's do in vBrawl, and would be interesting to start a "hacked ISP" of sorts.

I'm sure you're busy, but could you post a pseudo-code block or something to explain what you're talking about?

 

[shanus]

The main issue is the loading of the the fitXXfinal.pac that many characters require. These don't seem to load correctly when you attempt to load them without the entrance and breaking of a smash ball. This is the true technical limitation.

In tabulating your total damage taken, or number of deaths, that is trivial.

There are even combo meters built into brawls engine which is fairly interesting which can be used as well.

The main issue at hand is the true, stable, activation of final smash.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Hmm... would it be possible to create a code to do so? Something that forces the Final.pac files to load at the start of a match no matter what?

 

[God of Humility]

Giving an advantage to someone losing is not always counter-competitive. We play with three stocks which means if you lose the first stock we are giving you a chance to try and regain the lead. Would you say playing with multiple stocks is counter competitive? It is giving a losing player another chance at victory despite making a mistake, is that not a reward for failure?

Super meters work the same way. They provide an advantage to losing players so that the leading player cannot easily get to the point in which their lead becomes so large it is impossible for them to lose. It forces the leading player to continue to be cautious of the opponent still having the ability to regain control but it also rewards the winning player due to them receiving meter faster than their opponent.

Multiple stocks are totally different. They are predetermined at the start and they don't give an advantage to the loser. If you lost a stock, you are at a disadvantage since your opponent has to kill you one less time. If a player is good enough to gain a large advance on his opponent, that player deserves that advantage and should not be put to another obstacle (Pity Final Smash).

This mechanic would be cool if it rewarded the winning player.

And don't point at Lucario's Aura, that is extremely counter-compettitive.

 

[Big-Cat]

Multiple stocks are totally different. They are predetermined at the start and they don't give an advantage to the loser. If you lost a stock, you are at a disadvantage since your opponent has to kill you one less time. If a player is good enough to gain a large advance on his opponent, that player deserves that advantage and should not be put to another obstacle (Pity Final Smash).

This mechanic would be cool if it rewarded the winning player.

And don't point at Lucario's Aura, that is extremely counter-compettitive.

The problem with making the mechanic reward the winning player is that you make the match one sided in the end. The Ultra Combo system allows the match to be much closer. This was one of the reasons, I believe, why combo scaling (think stale moves, but limited to combos only) was implemented.

Also, there is an advantage to losing a stock. You start off with 0% damage and a brief state of grace. If you're quick enough, you can make a comeback and reset the playing field.

If anything, I'd be willing to say that awarding the winning player is anti-competitive as it can turn off people who are new to the game who have no way to fight back, thereby reducing the amount of people in a competitive community.

Try thinking of it this way: Let's say I spam you with Fox's lasers to build meter. Therefore, you're making the game even more campier than it is already.

You might want to take a quick look at the is Sirlin article:
http://www.sirlin.net/articles/slippery-slope-and-perpetual-comeback.html

I suppose one compromise would be to fill the Ultra Meter by both dealing AND inflicting damage, AKA you have to be involved with the fight.

@Jack

I applaud you for bringing this concept up and thinking of a way to test this.

@shanus
If that's the case, then why do pity final smashes work without breaking a smash ball?

Maybe you could try exploiting some of the methods surrounding the activation leading to that. Of course, though, I'd like to see the code for these if you have time, even though I only know Java right now.

 

[God of Humility]

The problem with making the mechanic reward the winning player is that you make the match one sided in the end. The Ultra Combo system allows the match to be much closer. This was one of the reasons, I believe, why combo scaling (think stale moves, but limited to combos only) was implemented.

Of course, it widens the gap, and I am with you when you say you must not give advantage that does not represent the skill level. This is exactly why we must not reward player when they lose because it gives them an advantage that does not reflect their skill. Its like a handicap. (Of course the same can be said to giving advantage to the winning player.)

Also, there is an advantage to losing a stock. You start off with 0% damage and a brief state of grace. If you're quick enough, you can make a comeback and reset the playing field.

Yes, there is an advantage to losing a stock. However, I don't think it is too much as to break the competitiveness considering the fact that the player has lost a stock. Ideally, if it was possible to remove, I would advocate for it.

If anything, I'd be willing to say that awarding the winning player is anti-competitive as it can turn off people who are new to the game who have no way to fight back, thereby reducing the amount of people in a competitive community.

Counter competitive does not mean increasing the competitive community, it means ensuring that the player with most skills win. It doesn't matter if new players like it or not. If it is the most effective in ensuring the best player wins, it should be implemented.

Try thinking of it this way: Let's say I spam you with Fox's lasers to build meter. Therefore, you're making the game even more campier than it is already.

Of course. If we give a reason to be campier, the game will be campier. However, it is always better than to give a positive handicap to the losing player, giving a bigger challenge to the best player.

Think of it that way: Player A and Player B are almost equal in skill and are using the same character. However, Player A is a bit better. Under normal circumstances, Player A would win, but with this mechanic that helps the loser, B is given the extra edge to beat A. A didn't receive any boost since he was winning but B got one and used it to win. A should've won, but this counter competitive mechanic helps the worst player to win against the best. This goes against the idea that the best should win since it goes against the best and helps the worst.

I suppose one compromise would be to fill the Ultra Meter by both dealing AND inflicting damage, AKA you have to be involved with the fight.

If this ensures that the bars fill at the exact same rate, it could work. But then we'd have to balance FS which is perfectly doable, even though it will be difficult.

 

[Big-Cat]

Of course, it widens the gap, and I am with you when you say you must not give advantage that does not represent the skill level. This is exactly why we must not reward player when they lose because it gives them an advantage that does not reflect their skill. Its like a handicap. (Of course the same can be said to giving advantage to the winning player.)

When did I say that? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for the removal of the skill gap, but I am against one sided matches. It's no fun for the one being beaten or for spectators to just watch and wait for death.

Yes, there is an advantage to losing a stock. However, I don't think it is too much as to break the competitiveness considering the fact that the player has lost a stock. Ideally, if it was possible to remove, I would advocate for it.

By this logic, an Ultra Meter would be just fine considering the fact that the player has been dealt a lot of damage and can die before using it.

Counter competitive does not mean increasing the competitive community, it means ensuring that the player with most skills win. It doesn't matter if new players like it or not. If it is the most effective in ensuring the best player wins, it should be implemented.

This is something the SF community had going on for a while, from what I can tell at SRK.
Eventually, you're going to get to the point where only the most skillful are still around and that would more than likely be a very small population.

Of course. If we give a reason to be campier, the game will be campier. However, it is always better than to give a positive handicap to the losing player, giving a bigger challenge to the best player.

So wait, you want a FIGHTING game to be even campier just so we can see who has teh skillz? I enjoy competitive play as much as the next person, but I want to have fun while playing competitively. To me, what you're saying is not fun.

Think of it that way: Player A and Player B are almost equal in skill and are using the same character. However, Player A is a bit better. Under normal circumstances, Player A would win, but with this mechanic that helps the loser, B is given the extra edge to beat A. A didn't receive any boost since he was winning but B got one and used it to win. A should've won, but this counter competitive mechanic helps the worst player to win against the best. This goes against the idea that the best should win since it goes against the best and helps the worst.

You're acting as if an Ultra Combo would mean that Player A can't win once Player B has his/her Ultra Combo available. Yes, Player A has to be more cautious, but Player B still has to be able to land the move where Player A gets damaged. Let me provide you with an example from Super Street Fighter IV.

I'm El Fuerte and my opponent is Chun-Li with her Kikoushou ready to go. As you can see, this move has a limited range. I can, with El Fuerte, induce mind games to where I am just outside of the attack's hit box and trick the opponent into thinking I'm wide open to the attack. Unfortunately, she whiffs the attack and has a lot of recovery afterwords leaving her open for a combo.

As you can see, my skills over countering Kikoushou were required in this situation. Therefore, what happens is that you have to get the opponent in a condition where it is costly to activate their Ultra without them realizing it.

If this ensures that the bars fill at the exact same rate, it could work. But then we'd have to balance FS which is perfectly doable, even though it will be difficult.

I wouldn't say that they increase at the same rate, but that's something you'd have to determine from testing.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

The technical problems are severe, but you also have six seemingly unsolvable problems. Those are Fox, Falco, and Wolf on one hand (the whole concept of the Landmaster is just broken within the engine) and Ness, Lucas, and Snake on the other hand (their final smashes are designed for 4 player play and are completely useless in 1v1 on a fundamental level). Even Super Sonic is probably addressable with powerful enough editing tools and enough creativity (really changing how his hit dynamics work would be required), but those six are just unsalvagable I think. Factor in the technical limitations, and I don't know where you have to go.

 

[God of Humility]

When did I say that? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for the removal of the skill gap, but I am against one sided matches. It's no fun for the one being beaten or for spectators to just watch and wait for death.

The point is not for it to be fun. the point is for the best player to win. If a player is good enough to have a large advantage over his opponent, he deserves to keep this advantage, not to have the game bridge the gap. This mechanic would give an advantage with no relation to the skill level.

By this logic, an Ultra Meter would be just fine considering the fact that the player has been dealt a lot of damage and can die before using it.

No. An ultra meter is giving more opportunity (an advantage) to someone who does not deserve it. The same can be said about invincibility while respawning, but it has a lesser impact. (But as I said, if it was possible to remove, I would want it gone, even if the advantage is very slim.)

This is something the SF community had going on for a while, from what I can tell at SRK.
Eventually, you're going to get to the point where only the most skillful are still around and that would more than likely be a very small population.

It doesn't matter if it is a small population, the most important point is for the best player to win. Giving advantages with no regard to who deserves it or skill level is not a good way to ensure the best wins.

So wait, you want a FIGHTING game to be even campier just so we can see who has teh skillz? I enjoy competitive play as much as the next person, but I want to have fun while playing competitively. To me, what you're saying is not fun.

I never said I wanted it to be campier, I said it was better a campy game than an unfair one. And competitive play is not about casual fun, it is about competitive fun. Competitive players have fun playing a competitive game. An ultra meter gives goes against the idea of the better player winning and earning his advantages, thus it is counter-competitive.

You're acting as if an Ultra Combo would mean that Player A can't win once Player B has his/her Ultra Combo available. Yes, Player A has to be more cautious, but Player B still has to be able to land the move where Player A gets damaged. Let me provide you with an example from Super Street Fighter IV.

I'm El Fuerte and my opponent is Chun-Li with her Kikoushou ready to go. As you can see, this move has a limited range. I can, with El Fuerte, induce mind games to where I am just outside of the attack's hit box and trick the opponent into thinking I'm wide open to the attack. Unfortunately, she whiffs the attack and has a lot of recovery afterwords leaving her open for a combo.

As you can see, my skills over countering Kikoushou were required in this situation. Therefore, what happens is that you have to get the opponent in a condition where it is costly to activate their Ultra without them realizing it.

Of course, the advantage is not unbeatable, but it is an advantage nonetheless since it offers more possibilities. And most probably, this advantage is rather large since it gives a FS.

I wouldn't say that they increase at the same rate, but that's something you'd have to determine from testing.

If it does not increase at the same rate, one player will have more than the other. If that happens, it widens or bridges a gap that needs no bridging or widening. It would be better if the best player's meter increased faster since he would deserve it. However, I think it might widen a gap and create situations where the best player would win by 2 stocks instead of 1.


What is important here is to ensure the best player wins. Giving an advantage to the loser only helps the loser to win, thus making it more likely that the worst one wins.

 

[Adell]

The point is not for it to be fun. the point is for the best player to win.

uhhhhhhh........ the point is to have fun.

im against final smashs as they are just to OP. kuma i like that idea you were talking about with supers in the SSB4 thread and that other gameplay thread

 

[shanus]

Asking me to post code here is kind of fruitless since a lot of it is just activation of arbitrary variables in PSA-language

 

[Big-Cat]

Go watch some SSF4 fights and come back and say that to me. Typically, you do NOT win a match with an Ultra combo nor is it an instant win. If anything, we would need a super meter to balance out the Ultra Meter if it matters to you that much.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=0xkeNzo#g/u

Asking me to post code here is kind of fruitless since a lot of it is just activation of arbitrary variables in PSA-language

I'm sorry, but can you PM me what you mean by all that?

 

[Turbo Ether]

Christ.

It's not like the losing player is the only one that get's an Ultra. The guy in the lead also gets an ultra, should he meet the requirements. Plus, you actually have to be able to land the Ultra. It typically requires a good read and skill to pull off, and if you mess up, you're vulnerable as hell.

Also, it's already been stated in this thread that, ideally, the Final Smashes would be adjusted accordingly, for the sake of balance.

 

[God of Humility]

What I'm trying to say is that giving a player an advantage he didn't earn is bridging a gap that the best player worked to create. However, if both player had the same amount of FS and FS were reasonably balanced, it would probably work.

Even if some skill is needed to land an ultra, it is one more opportunity that is given. It is an advantage that is given without the player deserving it. Unless it is absolutely hard to hit with and the risk of being severely punished are higher than the chance of hitting successfully for a lot of damage.

@Adell : Yes the point is to have fun, but not casual fun. Competitive players have more fun playing competitively, which means, the best player must win. There is no need for flashy moves that give an advantage to the losing player, (and therefore, a disadvantage to the winning player).

 

[Adell]

kuma this is not SSF4 this is smash. and final smashs are broken

 

[Nerd With An Afro]

Ignore this

 

[Big-Cat]

kuma this is not SSF4 this is smash. and final smashs are broken

Some are broken, some are flat out useless. But yes, for the time being, comparing the final smashes to ultra combos is comparing two completely different things, one's balanced, the other isn't.

I simply posted those videos to show that the Ultra system can work just fine by offering a precedent.

 

[Adell]

final smashs were made for casual play, which is where their not balanced and i think their gonna stay that way cause i don't think sakurai cares

 

[SmashChu]

Some are broken, some are flat out useless. But yes, for the time being, comparing the final smashes to ultra combos is comparing two completely different things, one's balanced, the other isn't.

Last line makes no sense as comparing them based on balance is comparing them. If they are incomparable, then you can make no judgments between the two.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Oh, man, I leave for a few days, and we get horribly off-topic. To all those arguing about:

* FS balance between characters
* the mechanics behind awarding FS'es
* anything not related to coding up the tests in the OP

...you're horribly off-topic, and it'd be appreciated if you all stopped talking about it. This thread is ONLY for the discussion of actually coding and testing the concepts in the OP.

To get back on topic:

It's actually a good point that it seems to load FS pacs just fine when a Pity FS is acquired. Does the loading of the .pac files have to do with the item select screen? It would make sense, considering you can't get Pity FS'es when items are off or Smash Balls are off. Which brings me back to, can we used an Ocarina code to force the FS .pacs to load?

 

[Fen__]

Is it really even necessary to mess with the FitFinal.pac files? Couldn't we just do something like what Eldiran did with Wisp? Wisp's side special charges when taking damage, dealing damage (?), turning, and dropping shield. Couldn't new final smashes be coded similarly, having special animations, etc. activate when done at a certain threshold? Honestly, though, I'd rather we try to implement a system that doesn't use a simple press of the special button. It'd be nice to have the ability to do your neutral special when your FS is active.

 

[xDD-Master]

It would be really cool if there would be a ultra meter in Brawl.
And I dont really think we need to touch the ultra smashes at all. They could just be how they are.

It would be enough if it were somewhat like Fen said. Just give the character a special move when he has about 150% (Depends on Characters, Jiggs may get at 100%, whereas Snake gets at 200% lol).
For example Wario does a Mega-Super-Duper-Hyper Waft when he has about 150% Damage, Range of 3/4 BF (When he stands in the middle, to top plattform and to the side of the middle ones), which does like 50% Damage, high Knockbock and breaks Shield, so the only viable option would be spotdodge/airdodge or to stay out of range (Or to pressure Wario the whole time, but with vBrawls hitstun haaa ha).
We just need to be creative about all those new moves.
DK gets a stronger Punch, with more SA lol.
Mario may get something similar to his Final Smash.
Snake could get 10 Super grenades? I dunno. Be creative.

 

[xDD-Master]

Giving an advantage to someone because they are taking damage or losing stocks is counter-competitive. Its like rewarding people because they are losing. The only thing it will achieve is giving a chance for the worst players to win against the best.

You know what, living to 200%+ is a very deep part of competetive brawl and often shows the difference between good and bad players...

Just wanted to say.

 

[Big-Cat]

It would be really cool if there would be a ultra meter in Brawl.
And I dont really think we need to touch the ultra smashes at all. They could just be how they are.

It would be enough if it were somewhat like Fen said. Just give the character a special move when he has about 150% (Depends on Characters, Jiggs may get at 100%, whereas Snake gets at 200% lol).
For example Wario does a Mega-Super-Duper-Hyper Waft when he has about 150% Damage, Range of 3/4 BF (When he stands in the middle, to top plattform and to the side of the middle ones), which does like 50% Damage, high Knockbock and breaks Shield, so the only viable option would be spotdodge/airdodge or to stay out of range (Or to pressure Wario the whole time, but with vBrawls hitstun haaa ha).
We just need to be creative about all those new moves.
DK gets a stronger Punch, with more SA lol.
Mario may get something similar to his Final Smash.
Snake could get 10 Super grenades? I dunno. Be creative.

Considering that we have mods out there that radically alter the move properties, it MIGHT work, but since my coding knowledge is limited, it seems like it would be difficult to add a brand new move into the game the way things are.

Of course, I could be wrong.

On a side note, I should consider getting involved with this community.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

The technical problems are severe, but you also have six seemingly unsolvable problems. Those are Fox, Falco, and Wolf on one hand (the whole concept of the Landmaster is just broken within the engine) and Ness, Lucas, and Snake on the other hand (their final smashes are designed for 4 player play and are completely useless in 1v1 on a fundamental level). Even Super Sonic is probably addressable with powerful enough editing tools and enough creativity (really changing how his hit dynamics work would be required), but those six are just unsalvagable I think. Factor in the technical limitations, and I don't know where you have to go.

Not to mention it's just ****ing annoying to code. Couldn't we just flat-out replace fox's/wolf's/falco's final smash? Granted, in fox/falco's case, it would have to be the same one...

Oh, man, I leave for a few days, and we get horribly off-topic. To all those arguing about:

* FS balance between characters
* the mechanics behind awarding FS'es
* anything not related to coding up the tests in the OP

...you're horribly off-topic, and it'd be appreciated if you all stopped talking about it. This thread is ONLY for the discussion of actually coding and testing the concepts in the OP.

To get back on topic:

It's actually a good point that it seems to load FS pacs just fine when a Pity FS is acquired. Does the loading of the .pac files have to do with the item select screen? It would make sense, considering you can't get Pity FS'es when items are off or Smash Balls are off. Which brings me back to, can we used an Ocarina code to force the FS .pacs to load?

The ocarina code would be hard to do... The brawl- team has put our heads together about this, and the only clue we've gotten is an ASM code from a while back that I dug up. Dant said he could eventually recode it to trigger a final smash when a certain variable gets activated, but until then we're stuck with Bowser, Wario, and one more who I'm forgetting who always have their final smash ready.

 

[Jack Kieser]

Well, it's better than nothing. So, as of now, we have two possible paths.

Path 1 (Difficult, but Elegant): Figure out the ASM needed to trigger a Final Smash, then proceed with the testing in the OP.

Path 2 (Easier, but Kind of Hackish): Make "Psuedo-Final Smashes" by copying charge mechanics in other moves and custom-coding new "Ultra Moves", sometimes mimic-ing actual Final Smashes, sometimes creating all-new moves; these new Ultra Moves would activate after certain conditions and override other moves for one shot.

If someone could work on Path 2 just for kicks, it might get us father along than just waiting for the ASM code that might actually never happen.

...gogogo? lol

 

[Fen__]

You should PM a mod to have this moved into the Workshop General instead of the Help forum.

 

[Yuna]

Well... tell that to SF4, like I said in the OP; they do it (Ultras are usually better / more damaging than Supers), and they're doing pretty well, competitively speaking.

Either way, is there a PSA-hacking expert who can comment?

TL;DR Version:
Final Smashes are too broken to be allowed in Competitive or even Semi-Competitive play. And if this is only for Casual play, then why go through all of this trouble hacking it into the game at all seeing as how you can just turn FS:es on as items in Casual play since it's, you know, Casual)


Essay Version or Why Final Smashes Are Broken:
SFIV is played in Rounds. A Best out of 5 Rounds match is approximately equivalent to a 3-stock match (one has to win 3 Rounds/kill off 3 stocks). The strongest Ultras in SFIV inflict approximately 35-40% of damage. That's 35-40% of one Life Bar/Stock. The strongest Final Smashes in the Brawl are One Hit KO's at 0-10% depending on which stage you're playing on. They don't really compare. Giving someone a special move which only activates after you've taken a certain variable of punishment that inflicts a maximum of around 40% of a "stock" does not compare to giving someone a 100% move.

The Invicibility Frames of Ultras are relatively short lived, usually existing only in the first few frames of the Ultra, allowing, for example, Chun-Li to go through projectiles using hers. Brawl Final Smashes have Invincibility Frames which last from the very first frame of activation until the hitbox has disappeared (except for in some rare cases). Heck, some characters' Invincibility Frames haven't even ended once they can move again! SFIV Ultras can be interrupted if used improperly, say, by a Projectile or a really well-timed move. Final Smashes cannot due to the ridiculous amounts of Invincibility Frames.

Furthermore, every single Ultra in SFIV is blockable. This is extremely important as this serves to nerf Ultras even further! Since they are unblockable, Ultras have to be comboed into (Chun-Lis EX Hyakuretsu Kyaku near a corner (if you want the full Ultra to hit) into Hosenka) Mindgamed into (Ken's Hadou Shoryuken on Okizeme (with Ken on the ground) if you think the opponent is going to pressure/attack) or as Pressure (Dhalsim's Yoga Catastrophe on Okizeme (with the opponent on the ground). Final Smashes, however, makes the performer invincible and they are unblockable. This means that they are 100% guaranteed on Okizeme (unless your Invincibility Frames on Get-Up Attack last for a long enough time to dodge the hit. Furthermore, because of the 100% guaranteed hit on Okizeme if the opponent knows the timing, you can no longer Tech once Marth gets a Final Smash. If you Tech, he can just time the Final Smash. You're also pretty screwed if you're hanging on the ledge seeing as how there are literally zero safe options to make it back to the stage without being hit by Critical Hit (unless you do a well-timed Triangle Jump and Marth royally screws up.

SFIV Ultras have also been intricately balanced according to usefulness, range, damage, etc. Brawl FS:es have not. Not only is there absolutely no comparison between Final Smashes like, say, Donkey Kong's and Marth's Konga Beat versus Marth's Critical Hit, or if you want to compare similar FS:es, Toon Link's Triforce Slash compared to Marth's Critical Hit (which is ridiculous seeing as how Marth is actually higher ranked than Toon Link), we also have to contend with entirely different kinds of Final Smashes.

The Transformation Final Smashes are the most ridiculous in the game. They last for a really long time, many of them boost the stats of the user up by ridiculous amounts and they render the user invincible for the entire duration of the Final Smash. That's a good 10-20 seconds during which the only thing the opponent can do is to run for their lives and try to avoid being hit, which is ridiculous.

Final Smashes cannot ever be used Competitively or even semi-Competitively because they are inherently broken (unblockable, Invincibility Frames through the wazoo), imbalanced (Peach Blossom vs. Critical Hit, Konga Beat vs. Landmaster (pick a Landmaster, any Landmaster)). They are game-breaking.

So unless we hack not only how Final Smashes are gained but also how they work on a core level (intricate re-balancing of Final Smashes, removing the Invincibility Frames past the, oh, 5th-10th frame, making them all blockable, damage output, the length of transformations), they will never be usable in Competitive play (unless you want to, you know, eschew the entire Competitive aspect of tournaments)! And if we do that, then why even bother since it'll be 50 times as bad as Brawl+: You've changed Final Smashes so much the only aspects of them that remain are how they look.

It would be enough if it were somewhat like Fen said. Just give the character a special move when he has about 150% (Depends on Characters, Jiggs may get at 100%, whereas Snake gets at 200% lol).

It should be dependent on how much damage a character takes and carry over through stocks. After all, Ultras and moves like Ultras carry over through rounds. It's pretty much only Arc Systems' games (Guilty Gear, BlazBlue) that have Super Meters not carry over through rounds.

 

[Deleted member]

You can give people a final smash with a button press. I need to look up the codes to be sure though.
someone (read: a hacker) then needs to find a way to emulate a clock and use that as conditional instead of the button.

Yuna is correct though, most FSes are extremely broken. most however are still just attacks, which should make it possible to downtune them

 

[Revven]

PK: I believe you're thinking of the code that when you press taunt, you receive an FS.

 

[Deleted member]

Yes that might be the one.
doesn't really matter if it is a button press or an action sonce the conditional needs to be changed anyway.
thing is that you can activate the FS whith some simple conitional other than grabbing a smashball.

might also be useful to prevent both players to activate it on the same time.