Upcoming 1.0.4 Balance Patch in November!

[ParanoidDrone]

Harsh Truth: "Tech" is cool-kid slang for "unintuitive inputs for degeneratively optimal options and behaviors that remove depth but make me artificially better than people who don't go on smashboards."

How would you classify Rosalina's thing where she can input an aerial just before landing and walk around while Luma does its equivalent attack?

 

[Thinkaman]

Ugh, balance patches 2 months into the game's international release, no one knows enough about the balance of this game that making significant changes will be good in the long run.

I mean, there seems to be a focus on bug fixes. It might be premature to even call this a "balance patch" except in a technically correct holistic sense. (That fixing bugs affects balance.)

What we're really seeing is just the 3DS version being given parity to the WiiU version of the game, which had 2 extra months of QA and balance testing.

I would be sorely disappointed if they just stopped balance testing the true version of the game just because the portable preview was out.

 

[Deathcarter]

I strongly believe that this patch is the "Wii U" release date patch.
So whatever it is in the Prod version of the Wii U game, it'll be in the 3DS via this patch.

So if someone tested that item toss lag cancel, megaman RC glitch are gone and luma's spawn time increased, in the Wii U version, then most likely they'll be in the patch.

To get more info, it would be good if someone here already have the Wii U version to test things out.

as far as changes go, I support them (even if I main peach). All glitches and bugs should be fixed, then infinites.
then balance changes. So far I think the balance is ok in the 3ds version. But if we are to get balance changes, I side with giving buffs to the lower tiers than nerfs to the top tiers.

I think this is the case as well. My hope is that this is only to keep both versions the same mechanically and that Nintendo will otherwise be hands off with the game and won't try to meddle with the metagame except for really broken exploits or characters.

 

[Tristan_win]

Oh boy a balance patch!

I hope they nerf 'X' character 'X' trait. What, they're nerfing my character? I completely disagree with this change!

 

[TimeSmash]

B-but Peach without glitches/exploits is the equivalent of her character falling down the stairs!!

 

[cAm8ooo]

Harsh Truth: "Tech" is cool-kid slang for "unintuitive inputs for degeneratively optimal options and behaviors that remove depth but make me artificially better than people who don't go on smashboards."

Can you explain how At's remove depth? Taking melee and stripping away things like Wavedashing don't add depth to the game, it removes options. Having a game with more options ultimately means more decisions that can be made. I can see a point if the new option is the ultimate thing to do and should be done all the time like L-canceling but even then, lowering your lag gives you more ability to follow up, promotes aggression, etc. No one would rather it be gone and characters be slower. Heck, you could even argue that without some of these techniques some characters become less viable.

How does Bowser for instance lose depth by not having his waveslashing? It gives him overall better movement options and allows him to approach in ways he couldn't before. And it's not artificial improvement. If someone doesnt want to learn how to use a C-stick I shouldn't not use mine. If my opponent doesnt know how to B-reverse I shouldn't not do mine. If you play the game competitively than its on you to push your character to his/her limits. If you are just casually playing on For Glory and a character does something you dont know how to do its a simple Google search. If they don't want to learn it it really isnt going to effect them much. I'm not being a "cool kid" by knowing how .

 

[byebye]

Ugh, balance patches 2 months into the game's international release, no one knows enough about the balance of this game that making significant changes will be good in the long run.

You're right about the balance. It's too early for that.

But we do know that the 3ds version is sort of the "better than beta testing" phase of the game as a whole. So I would say that the "Real" Smash4 game is the Wii U version / 1.04v of the 3ds.

The patch should fix the glitches / bugs as a priority, before considering balance.
So far, is there any character dominating the national tournaments?

 

[Thinkaman]

How would you classify Rosalina's thing where she can input an aerial just before landing and walk around while Luma does its equivalent attack?

Regardless of semantic classification, this seems like ordinary (if clever/optimal) behavior of a puppet character and a really natural thing.

I could understand a design decision to reset Luma on landing, to keep them synchronized, but it's probably more natural this way.

 

[BBC7]

Harsh Truth: "Tech" is cool-kid slang for "unintuitive inputs for degeneratively optimal options and behaviors that remove depth but make me artificially better than people who don't go on smashboards."

And not using tech? That's no cool

Oh boy a balance patch!

I hope they nerf 'X' character 'X' trait. What, they're nerfing my character? I completely disagree with this change!

I don't like it because it doesn't feel like "This tech has proven to be powerful, therefore, it shall be removed for the sake of balance."

It feels like "This is tech and it shouldn't be here", I don't mind the Yoshi teleporting or wectoring at all, I was excited to hear that tech exists and wanted to see how they would shape out. I like seeing other characters get stronger. Not to mention that he seemed to patch Rush Cancelling(not 100% sure) and no one is reporting any buff that Mega Man may have received, leading me to believe that Mega Man was down-right nerfed. If Sakurai didn't even play with Mega Man during development long enough to find Rush Cancelling, I feel worried for how the character is going to end up.

 

[GeZ]

Harsh Truth: "Tech" is cool-kid slang for "unintuitive inputs for degeneratively optimal options and behaviors that remove depth but make me artificially better than people who don't go on smashboards."

That's painting with way too broad a brush, man. Tech is just stuff you wouldn't necessarily know how to do because it's not self explanatory. In melee, wave dashing, dash dancing, auto cancelling, etc, is all tech, and not near what you describe.

 

[D-idara]

I don't really see all the hate for balance patches, if the Namco-Bandai team has some sensibilities, they'll nerf the really obvious OP stuff at first (Rosalina's Luma Respawn) and maybe give some obvious bufffs to moves that should be good, like half of Samus' moveset not connecting like it should. Seriously, Samus needs her Jab Combo to have more hitstun and both her NAir and Bair hitboxes made much bigger.

Now, if they add something to a character's moveset that wasn't there before, or drastically change a bad move like Ganondorf's never-use-this-**** Up Tilt, then that'd be very interesting (Samus being able to lay Morph Ball bombs when she rolls plz).

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Now, if they add something to a character's moveset that wasn't there before, or drastically change a bad move like Ganondorf's never-use-this-**** Up Tilt, then that'd be very interesting (Samus being able to lay Morph Ball bombs when she rolls plz).

Or take a page from PM's book and let her crawl with the Morph Ball.

 

[D-idara]

Or take a page from PM's book and let her crawl with the Morph Ball.

Yes but a roll attack would be something really unique...to be honest, Samus needs a ton of buffs to make her really good, it's ridiculous that she's lower tier than her supposedly weaker suitless version. She's not the only one who needs more hitstun, though, Marth needs more hitstun on his Jab Combo as well...it'd also be really cool to introduce visual effects through patches, like maybe Samus having different particle effects for her different arm cannon attacks?

Yes, I really want Samus to be good.

 

[Thinkaman]

Can you explain how At's remove depth?

First, adding options that are dominant options, is actually removing options--or at least removing gameplay. This is usually the case with most "ATs"--adding a new input that is strictly superior to previous options, at least in many situations. This is because by definition they are outside the normal balancing scope of the game.

Additionally, adding options is adding breadth, which is the exact inverse of depth.

To digress though, the community's definition of the word "tech" or "AT" has sort of diluted to the point of nothingness. Some people who call these explicit game inputs/features "ATs":

• Pivot Grabbing
• Short-Hopping
• Crawling
• Wall Jumping/Clinging
• Link's Hyrule Shield
• Zairs
• DI
• SDI
• Ukemi ("Teching")

Then you've got edge cases of normal inputs:

• Dashing U-smash
• U-Smash OoS
• Up-b OoS
• B-reversal
• B-turnabout
• Various pivots

Many people called those "ATs" as well, even though they are just normal inputs for normal actions. This is separate from input lenience exploits, which are legitimate ATs by a more formal definition:

• Shutter-Step F-smash
• Salmon Smash
• DACUS
• Boost Grabs
• Roll-cancelled Grabs

These things don't add anything to the game and are bad design, or at least unfortunate oversights--classic Cocaine Logic things. We could achieve the same results in a much cleaner and accessible way by making f-smashes/dash grabs have more range all the time, and not only when you pass the secret execution test. (Or in the case of DACUS, by making dashing u-smashes better--both faster and with more control.)

Wavebouncing (B-reversal-turnabout) is a tough call that could be classified either way. You can make a fair argument that it is legitimately an ordinary input behaving exactly as everyone should expect. You can also argue that it is not very intuitive and is prohibitively difficult to execute for manly players (especially on neutral-b), and that maybe it's not an "AT" but the game would be ultimately better without it. I could buy either argument. (Wavebouncing doesn't really compete with other options, but it's frequently optimal over normal special usage at most spacings...)

You could pose a similar debate over wave-dashing, but I'm not sure I'd buy it.

You could also pose this debate on moves that have IASA before the landing-lag window ends, except I think we'd all agree that this just shouldn't happen regardless of semantics, making it a moot point.

Then you've got bonafide "tech" that everyone agrees on: janky, character-specific glitches the bestow some unnatural advantage:

• Palutena's Lightweight Cooldown Bypass
• Rush (Hitstun) Cancelling
• Item-Toss Hitstun/Landing Lag Cancelling
• Various (Arbitrary) Move-Specific State Cancels (Diddy neutral-b, Greninja side-b, Lucario up-b)
• Peach Floating-Bypasses-Stale-Moves
• Wario Wacky DI

You'll note that the only difference between "tech" and "bugs" is whether they help the character win or not.

L-cancelling is a unusual case, because it was put and left in intentionally, albeit with minimal documentation and no player feedback. Because Intent is not actually the true criteria in play, no one would debate that l-cancelling is an "AT" by almost any definition.



The bottom line, past all the semantics and dubious classification, is this:

What percentage of the game's outcome should be based on who can push buttons better?
Despite having pushed a lot of buttons in my time, I empathetically believe the only valid answer is 0%.

 

[BBC7]

Yes but a roll attack would be something really unique...to be honest, Samus needs a ton of buffs to make her really good, it's ridiculous that she's lower tier than her supposedly weaker suitless version. She's not the only one who needs more hitstun, though, Marth needs more hitstun on his Jab Combo as well...it'd also be really cool to introduce visual effects through patches, like maybe Samus having different particle effects for her different arm cannon attacks?

Yes, I really want Samus to be good.

Roll Attack?

1. Play as Mega Man
2. Activate Leaf Shield
3. Roll around with it
4. ???
5. PROFIT!

 

[Mettie7]

Receiving patch 1.0.4 will disable playback of replays saved using older versions.

sighhh

 

[KuroganeHammer]

Hopefully Mega Man and Charizard nerfs as well.

I don't see why Mega Man should be allowed to attack from mid range with impunity.

 

[Kenjin]

From what I know they changed Shadow Sneak so that you can't cancel d-air's ending lag with it anymore. So now punishing Greninja for missing d-air is going to be completely safe.

Okay, so you're basically saying that if I main Greninja, I can change my main? God damnit I hope this is a huge FAKE, I just CAN NOT believe that. Greninja would be low tier with that.

 

[BBC7]

Hopefully Mega Man and Charizard nerfs as well.

I don't see why Mega Man should be allowed to attack from mid range with impunity.

You people might as well just ask "I don't see why Mega Man is in this game"

 

[popsofctown]

I want a Mario Party 1 moneymatch with Thinkaman

 

[byebye]

What percentage of the game's outcome should be based on who can push buttons better?

I agree with this. and more specially in smash, where we have special moves by pressing B, compared to pressing b,db,d,df,f + LP.

Results should be based on "who can outwit the other player better?" and not "who can do the techs consistently?"

 

[cAm8ooo]

The bottom line, past all the semantics and dubious classification, is this:

What percentage of the game's outcome should be based on who can push buttons better?
Despite having pushed a lot of buttons in my time, I empathetically believe the only valid answer is 0%.

I disagree. To me, fighting games are about three things:

1. Knowing all of the options that your character has in a given situation.
2. Knowing the "correct" or "best" option for a given situation.
3. Executing that option.

What you pose is that the last option, execution, shouldn't be a big part of the game. I disagree. First, you can't throw every AT in the "push a lot of buttons" category. Even things you listed don't require much more button pressing. Lightweight cool down bypass- literally one button. Item-toss hitstun cancelling- literally one button.These things are by no means "difficult". It doesn't require you to be able to "push buttons better". What it does do is open up an entirely new way to have to deal with these characters.There is a whole new area of depth that is brought about by knowing these options, knowing when to use them, and being able to execute them.

For Palutena there is a whole new level of stage counter picking that is involved. If she is at battlefield, being able to prevent her from resetting her cool down becomes an awesome battle of stage control that just doesnt exist without this tech. There is a whole new level of strategy that is involved. I don't care that I dont play Palutena, the idea that she has this makes the game so much more unique and fun for me to play. Me being rewarded by controlling the stage and then punishing her sounds sooooo fun.

With Toonlink, his zoning strength becomes even better and forces me to rethink the way I play against the character. It also can provide him with followups that he could never of had before. Yes, those are more options. Is there a reason to not do hitstun cancelling? No. But is there a new area of follow ups to explore? Yes. Most certainly.

WIth bowser wavedashing there is a whole new way bowser can approach me. He has so many more options that I now have to think about and counter. That's unique. Thats depth. That's what is fun about this game to me. The strategies and mindgames go to a level they couldn't before.

 

[Nidtendofreak]

What percentage of the game's outcome should be based on who can push buttons better?
Despite having pushed a lot of buttons in my time, I empathetically believe the only valid answer is 0%.

That's... all you do in this game. Push buttons (or movement inputs as well if you want to be technical). You have to be better at pushing them at the right time and the right sequence when compared to your opponent regardless of if we're comparing ATs, "ATs", or just basic inputs like left vs right or jump vs shield.

There is really no point in complaining that "some" of the game is that, when its 100% that in terms of physical mechanics by the player. If you wanted to explore even more vague fields you have to account for things like the mental game behind it, but even then to use that effectively it boils down to how well you can use that information/misinformation to press buttons better than your opponent.

Having slightly fancier inputs for some characters that may or may not be intended doesn't change that at all.

 

[Zero Suit Senpai]

Harsh Truth: "Tech" is cool-kid slang for "unintuitive inputs for degeneratively optimal options and behaviors that remove depth but make me artificially better than people who don't go on smashboards."

Saying all ATs are bad seems like quite a blanket statement. Characters growing over time and people pushing fighting games to the limit of their systems is one of the primary joys for a lot of people in the genre. Are some ATs dumb (ZSS infinite on Robin for example)? Absolutely, and I don't mourn their loss. But other ATs, such as Melee's wavedashing, greatly improve the game (though I do believe the difficulty in executing wavedashes is unfortunate, so I don't really mourn their loss; but they did make melee what is was).

ATs don't just make you "artificially better" than people who "go on Smashboards." They just as frequently add depth to a game as they do remove depth from it. I really don't see how you can argue that they exclusively remove depth.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

First, adding options that are dominant options, is actually removing options--or at least removing gameplay. This is usually the case with most "ATs"--adding a new input that is strictly superior to previous options, at least in many situations. This is because by definition they are outside the normal balancing scope of the game.

Additionally, adding options is adding breadth, which is the exact inverse of depth.

To digress though, the community's definition of the word "tech" or "AT" has sort of diluted to the point of nothingness. Some people who call these explicit game inputs/features "ATs":

• Pivot Grabbing
• Short-Hopping
• Crawling
• Wall Jumping/Clinging
• Link's Hyrule Shield
• Zairs
• DI
• SDI
• Ukemi ("Teching")

Then you've got edge cases of normal inputs:

• Dashing U-smash
• U-Smash OoS
• Up-b OoS
• B-reversal
• B-turnabout
• Various pivots

Many people called those "ATs" as well, even though they are just normal inputs for normal actions. This is separate from input lenience exploits, which are legitimate ATs by a more formal definition:

• Shutter-Step F-smash
• Salmon Smash
• DACUS
• Boost Grabs
• Roll-cancelled Grabs

These things don't add anything to the game and are bad design, or at least unfortunate oversights--classic Cocaine Logic things. We could achieve the same results in a much cleaner and accessible way by making f-smashes/dash grabs have more range all the time, and not only when you pass the secret execution test. (Or in the case of DACUS, by making dashing u-smashes better--both faster and with more control.)

Wavebouncing (B-reversal-turnabout) is a tough call that could be classified either way. You can make a fair argument that it is legitimately an ordinary input behaving exactly as everyone should expect. You can also argue that it is not very intuitive and is prohibitively difficult to execute for manly players (especially on neutral-b), and that maybe it's not an "AT" but the game would be ultimately better without it. I could buy either argument. (Wavebouncing doesn't really compete with other options, but it's frequently optimal over normal special usage at most spacings...)

You could pose a similar debate over wave-dashing, but I'm not sure I'd buy it.

You could also pose this debate on moves that have IASA before the landing-lag window ends, except I think we'd all agree that this just shouldn't happen regardless of semantics, making it a moot point.

Then you've got bonafide "tech" that everyone agrees on: janky, character-specific glitches the bestow some unnatural advantage:

• Palutena's Lightweight Cooldown Bypass
• Rush (Hitstun) Cancelling
• Item-Toss Hitstun/Landing Lag Cancelling
• Various (Arbitrary) Move-Specific State Cancels (Diddy neutral-b, Greninja side-b, Lucario up-b)
• Peach Floating-Bypasses-Stale-Moves
• Wario Wacky DI

You'll note that the only difference between "tech" and "bugs" is whether they help the character win or not.

L-cancelling is a unusual case, because it was put and left in intentionally, albeit with minimal documentation and no player feedback. Because Intent is not actually the true criteria in play, no one would debate that l-cancelling is an "AT" by almost any definition.



The bottom line, past all the semantics and dubious classification, is this:

What percentage of the game's outcome should be based on who can push buttons better?
Despite having pushed a lot of buttons in my time, I empathetically believe the only valid answer is 0%.

Thinkaman, I see where you're coming from but I'd have to emphatically disagree with you. In the last few years I've become a game designer in my downtime, and I'm specifically working on a high profile fan fighting game. This is my genre. I have spent weeks debating design philosophy especially when it comes to accessibility. You see, I'm forced to make a traditional 2D fighting game, but I HATE the execution barriers that traditional fighting games provide for new players (despite me loving 2D fighters since my childhood). The barrier to entry is huge when your typical gamer has trouble inputting a quarter circle command. At some level, fighting games need to be easier to play in general by reducing the burden of knowledge new players must aquire to compete against each other.

I'll be honest, I can go on and on on this topic specifically. I can type a damn dissertation on this subject by now. So I'll just cut to the chase.

What you are leaving out is the reward for dedication. This is a key feature I believe most Nintendo games have lost with the years. I believe this is something that keeps both the casual and the hardcore player coming back to your game over and over again. When you keep playing the game and you know you are getting better at it.

Melee is a great example of this. The game was absurdly fast (too fast for casual gamers now) and had L-canceling. A casual player continues to come back over and over again and notice that they become better at inputs. Controlling their character becomes easier. Smoother. They start to L-cancel more and more (assuming someone teaches them). They continue coming back to play the game because they KNOW they are improving. They feel rewarded, win or lose, because they are moving like they were never able to before.

Dedication in any game should be rewarded. The issue is how it should be rewarded, and should that reward confer a huge unsurmountable advantage to the player who knows it thus making it a requirement to play at a high level.

If there were NO reward for "pushing buttons better" then there would be no differentiator between mid and high level players. Why should there be a differentiator you ask? Simple. a) Mid level players need something to aspire to more than "being a smarter player". b) Viewership drastically increases when people see players doing things they wish they could do (or can do at a much lower level) because that is entertaining. c) Rewarding a high level player for dedication and time, making them less frustrated at the game overall.

The grand finals of the first playable alpha version of my fighting game went down to Chris G vs a kid who loved fighting games but could never play them because he had trouble with basic inputs. And you know what? That grand finals went amazing. Proof of concept for my design philosophy. But the difference between that kid and other people like him is that he spent literally the entire day before the tournament at this convention playing my game. He could do things no other person could despite having a low traditional tech skill. He was rewarded for playing the game more because he could move in interesting ways and utilize the game's inherent mobility options very well.

Bringing the discussion back to Smash, THAT is what Smash actually lacks. The game does not have inherent options that, when utilized to their best capacity, provide a reward for continued playing. The issue with Smash 4 and Brawl is that players simply do not feel their own progression as players as heavily as they do vs something like Melee. I'd argue that from a design standpoint, Melee did a fabulous job of providing rewards for players until Wavedashing became a thing. The issue is that Smash 3/4 removed things like high speed and L canceling which are direct measures a player can feel and SEE their growth. Measuring sticks that you can directly compare to top level players. So how do we make up for that lack? How do we reward players for dedication and technique? Bugs. ATs. Glitches. Unusual or unnatural inputs for things. If you remove all of those then you return to the issue at hand... Smash AT ITS BASE is not a very well designed game for high level competitive play. Until Sakurai designs new inherent techniques for players to utilize and learn, then all we have left as differentiators between an experienced person and an unexperienced person are these bugs that you so vehemently hate.

TL;DR You're right to some extent. We shouldn't have to rely on things like bugs or awkward ATs like DACUS. But because its Smash Bros, we DO. And until Smash Bros adds new mechanics to supplement the game at high level play, these ATs are vital to the community and to the players who enjoy the competitive Smash Bros series.

Man I rambled a lot in there...

 

[SonicZeroX]

The bottom line, past all the semantics and dubious classification, is this:

What percentage of the game's outcome should be based on who can push buttons better?
Despite having pushed a lot of buttons in my time, I empathetically believe the only valid answer is 0%.

While in a competitive sense I agree with this statement, I think part of the appeal of fighting games is not that it's just a battle of wits, but the fact that there is a technical aspect to it as well. That's what separates fighting games from pure strategy games like chess.

It's true that from a theoretical point of view advanced techniques are essentially arbitrary because they are basically tools that are only accessible to those who have taken extra time to practice and learn them, and really only serve to act as a barrier between those who practice the game and those who don't. But really it's part of the appeal of the genre. Fighting games are exciting because players must simultaneously play the mind game against each other while also juggling and managing their own technical skill. That's why as ridiculous and as unbalanced as Marvel vs Capcom 3 is people still love playing it. Same with Melee.


...and SamuraiPanda beat me to the point as I was typing this >_>


edit: Holy crap I never realized that you made League of Fighters. For some reason I just didn't make the connection.

 

[Zero Suit Senpai]

It's true that from a theoretical point of view advanced techniques are essentially arbitrary because they are basically tools that are only accessible to those who have taken extra time to practice and learn them, and really only serve to act as a barrier between those who practice the game and those who don't. But really it's part of the appeal of the genre. Fighting games are exciting because players must simultaneously play the mind game against each other while also juggling and managing their own technical skill. That's why as ridiculous and as unbalanced as Marvel vs Capcom 3 is people still love playing it. Same with Melee.

This was a much more eloquent way of saying what I wanted to say. Technical skill is a huge part of the fighting game genre. ATs, figuring out everything you can do with a character, etc. are all just part of the genre. It's part of what makes it cool.

I personally love it when I see a tournament, and someone brings out a character that no one had seen before, and does something crazy with that character, and they take first place. That's an amazing thing that only really happens when someone dedicates a lot of time to learning the ins and outs, and perhaps a few ATs, for their character. That's also something at the very heart of fighting games. "What?! You can do that with Shulk?! That's so cool!" It's exciting and makes the game more interesting!

And yes, some ATs like infinites, are excruciatingly dumb. But there are others which really change characters in positive ways. So I really think saying that all ATs do is make the game a "kool kids club" is sort of missing the point. Fighting games have always been a kool kids club. It's a niche genre.

 

[byebye]

We are becoming off topic now I guess.

Anyway. You all do realize that pushing buttons has it's limit. One can L-cancel / wavedash 100% consistently.

See gaming is a non-important and non-urgent activity for most people. and not everyone will be able to invest thousand hours just to get that 100% execution. But people CAN and WILL if they just have the TIME to do so.

Now if everyone does any AT consistently, what's the difference than just pushing 1 button?

in the end the battle goes back to just out smarting the opponent.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Samurai has a fair point, ATs give a feeling of progression. But eliminating ATs will give more opportunities for players to find that progression else where, on some other area of the game.

A good example is in Mario Kart DS, snaking was an AT that separates snakers vs non snakers.
in MK8, there are no snaking there, therefore players are forced to hone their skills on other areas of the game like mastering the whole game instead of relying on snaking in order to win. One can still feel progression on finding ways beating their time by discovering the best setup and best lines.

 

[SonicZeroX]

Doesn't MK8 have a new type of "snaking"?

 

[The Real Gamer]

Hopefully Mega Man and Charizard nerfs as well.

I apologize for being "that guy" but whats wrong with Charizard?

I'm just legitimately curious since I have yet to see anyone complain about the character possibly being broken in some way.

 

[ParanoidDrone]

Doesn't MK8 have a new type of "snaking"?

Fire Hopping. Mashing the R button (or whatever) to hop constantly while boosting from a miniturbo, mushroom, or boost panel will extend the boost duration. IIRC there are a few limitations but that's the gist.

 

[JmacAttack]

But we do know that the 3ds version is sort of the "better than beta testing" phase of the game as a whole. So I would say that the "Real" Smash4 game is the Wii U version / 1.04v of the 3ds.

The patch should fix the glitches / bugs as a priority, before considering balance.
So far, is there any character dominating the national tournaments?

It was looking like Sheik was dominating tournaments for a short while, but then it seems like everyone learned how to beat Sheik (press "airdodge" when you hear the bouncing fish coming for nigh-immortality), and now I've seen tournaments where Sheiks either don't make it to Grand Finals, or get bodied by underrated characters like Ness in said Grand Finals.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

I apologize for being "that guy" but whats wrong with Charizard?

I'm just legitimately curious since I have yet to see anyone complain about the character possibly being broken in some way.

Side B is dumb, other than side b the character is thoroughly mediocre. The character just heavily leans on a one trick pony status, It's kind of like giving Brawl Ganondorf MK's Up B or neutral B.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

edit: Holy crap I never realized that you made League of Fighters. For some reason I just didn't make the connection.

:3

Unfortunately that is one of the reasons why I don't have as much time for competitive Smash anymore ;_;

 

[A2ZOMG]

Side B is dumb, other than side b the character is thoroughly mediocre. The character just heavily leans on a one trick pony status, It's kind of like giving Brawl Ganondorf MK's Up B or neutral B.

You think Charizard SideB is dumb, and then you considered Zelda Phantom terrible, when it functions similarly except without recoil and is safe on block.

Sorry, nitpicking. But I don't agree with the logic. Charizard Side-B is a totally fair move with balanced risk and reward and a realistic counterable reaction/spacing window. It's very unsafe on block, and you hurt yourself while using it, though it's a good move for recovery and getting out of traps. Charizard's actual good moves in contrast are his grab/throws, Jab, F-tilt, and N-air. The crux of Charizard's game is mostly solid normals, counterbalanced by his large frame. Why you think SideB makes him a one trick pony is confusing.

 

[Locke 06]

Fire Hopping. Mashing the R button (or whatever) to hop constantly while boosting from a miniturbo, mushroom, or boost panel will extend the boost duration. IIRC there are a few limitations but that's the gist.

But it's not as broken as snaking was. At least, online I rarely see people doing it unless they are all by themself.

---- on topic----
It's hard to believe tournament results/community speculations on competitive viability are really the reason for this balance patch. It's so early in the game's life cycle that people have barely started to make counter play character strengths and weaknesses.

I think the Rosalina 8s timer was increased, because 8s is about the amount of time it takes for Rosalina to DJ off the stage, ledge snap with invincibility, ledge drop down, DJ, and Up-B. While this is not really competitively valid because after the ledge drop down you are incredibly vulnerable, increasing the respawn time by 4 seconds removes it from being even remotely viable. This change makes sense. I don't know many other nerfs/buffs that make sense from a game design perspective other than bug fixes.

 

[KuroganeHammer]

You think Charizard SideB is dumb, and then you considered Zelda Phantom terrible, when it functions similarly except without recoil and is safe on block.

Sorry, nitpicking. But I don't agree with the logic. Charizard Side-B is a totally fair move with balanced risk and reward and a realistic counterable reaction/spacing window. It's very unsafe on block, and you hurt yourself while using it, though it's a good move for recovery and getting out of traps. Charizard's actual good moves in contrast are his grab/throws, Jab, F-tilt, and N-air. The crux of Charizard's game is mostly solid normals, counterbalanced by his large frame. Why you think SideB makes him a one trick pony is confusing.

Ok when I said Side B I primarily meant the Dragon Rush variant which is absolutely silly, but Blast burn killing at 60% and Flare Blitz are also silly but not quite on Dragon Rush level.

 

[DakotaBonez]

Wonder if they'll remove Miss Fit's momentum bug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpOqHUd4zFU

Its my favorite taunt when playing online.

 

[san.]

I don't think complex ATs are necessary, but I think it's a good thing when built-in characteristics of the game naturally flow into each other for a better experience. I help as a balancer in a mod for a PC game called Mount & Blade: Warband. The basic inputs are 4-directional swings and 4-directional blocks. You can also kick to stun someone, "block" with your own attack if timed correctly (called a chamber), hold your own attack, or switch from attack->block->attack relatively quickly (called a feint). That's it, really. However, there is a steady learning curve with everyone that I know becoming skilled within a year or 2.

Here is a medium to medium-high level duel between 2 random people:

People not familiar with the game may have no idea what's going on much, but there are plenty of mindgames on figuring out your positioning, the difference between weapons/builds (strength vs agility vs balanced), and each person's relative timing. Your opponent will rarely ever let you get 2 swings off without conditioning him to think you will perform a feint or a hold.

Getting better at the game came from mastering each nuance, then from understanding and exploiting your opponent's technique and habits.

Duels from the vanilla version can be even crazier with the highest level from a few years ago. Definitely made me think a little bit about the design.

 

[NairWizard]

Thinkaman, I see where you're coming from but I'd have to emphatically disagree with you. In the last few years I've become a game designer in my downtime, and I'm specifically working on a high profile fan fighting game. This is my genre. I have spent weeks debating design philosophy especially when it comes to accessibility. You see, I'm forced to make a traditional 2D fighting game, but I HATE the execution barriers that traditional fighting games provide for new players (despite me loving 2D fighters since my childhood). The barrier to entry is huge when your typical gamer has trouble inputting a quarter circle command. At some level, fighting games need to be easier to play in general by reducing the burden of knowledge new players must aquire to compete against each other.

I'll be honest, I can go on and on on this topic specifically. I can type a damn dissertation on this subject by now. So I'll just cut to the chase.

What you are leaving out is the reward for dedication. This is a key feature I believe most Nintendo games have lost with the years. I believe this is something that keeps both the casual and the hardcore player coming back to your game over and over again. When you keep playing the game and you know you are getting better at it.

Melee is a great example of this. The game was absurdly fast (too fast for casual gamers now) and had L-canceling. A casual player continues to come back over and over again and notice that they become better at inputs. Controlling their character becomes easier. Smoother. They start to L-cancel more and more (assuming someone teaches them). They continue coming back to play the game because they KNOW they are improving. They feel rewarded, win or lose, because they are moving like they were never able to before.

Dedication in any game should be rewarded. The issue is how it should be rewarded, and should that reward confer a huge unsurmountable advantage to the player who knows it thus making it a requirement to play at a high level.

If there were NO reward for "pushing buttons better" then there would be no differentiator between mid and high level players. Why should there be a differentiator you ask? Simple. a) Mid level players need something to aspire to more than "being a smarter player". b) Viewership drastically increases when people see players doing things they wish they could do (or can do at a much lower level) because that is entertaining. c) Rewarding a high level player for dedication and time, making them less frustrated at the game overall.

The grand finals of the first playable alpha version of my fighting game went down to Chris G vs a kid who loved fighting games but could never play them because he had trouble with basic inputs. And you know what? That grand finals went amazing. Proof of concept for my design philosophy. But the difference between that kid and other people like him is that he spent literally the entire day before the tournament at this convention playing my game. He could do things no other person could despite having a low traditional tech skill. He was rewarded for playing the game more because he could move in interesting ways and utilize the game's inherent mobility options very well.

Bringing the discussion back to Smash, THAT is what Smash actually lacks. The game does not have inherent options that, when utilized to their best capacity, provide a reward for continued playing. The issue with Smash 4 and Brawl is that players simply do not feel their own progression as players as heavily as they do vs something like Melee. I'd argue that from a design standpoint, Melee did a fabulous job of providing rewards for players until Wavedashing became a thing. The issue is that Smash 3/4 removed things like high speed and L canceling which are direct measures a player can feel and SEE their growth. Measuring sticks that you can directly compare to top level players. So how do we make up for that lack? How do we reward players for dedication and technique? Bugs. ATs. Glitches. Unusual or unnatural inputs for things. If you remove all of those then you return to the issue at hand... Smash AT ITS BASE is not a very well designed game for high level competitive play. Until Sakurai designs new inherent techniques for players to utilize and learn, then all we have left as differentiators between an experienced person and an unexperienced person are these bugs that you so vehemently hate.
TL;DR You're right to some extent. We shouldn't have to rely on things like bugs or awkward ATs like DACUS. But because its Smash Bros, we DO. And until Smash Bros adds new mechanics to supplement the game at high level play, these ATs are vital to the community and to the players who enjoy the competitive Smash Bros series.
Man I rambled a lot in there...

My post offers little substance, but as a fellow game designer and developer I have to say that I wholeheartedly, emphatically, and without reservation agree with this post, and if I could like it 3 times over but only by logging out of smashboards, closing my browser, opening it back up again, logging back into smashboards, and reading it again for each like, I would do so.