Using & Defining the term "Cheap"

[KirbCider]

I've often noticed some tend to throw this term around rather loosely for almost any instance in the game whether it be characters that are considered to be cheap, certain game-play styles, or even certain moves/combos characters are capable of using. While some often have valid reasons from time to time I still have to wonder if one is truly capable of being cheap in the game.

So my question to my fellow SmashBoarders are: "Is it truly possible to be cheap in Smash?"

And to those of you who do think it is possible, what in your eyes is considered as "Cheap"? Do you consider Spam to be cheap, or perhaps camping/passive play? Maybe it's a certain character people tend to use in certain ways that's cheap?

Explain and discuss your thoughts here freely.

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

As for my own response, I do believe it is impossible to be cheap in Smash. Although I can't always agree with how some people play (for example, I don't particularly like passive/camper players) if it works for them then it shouldn't be seen as cheap. The way I see it is if I lose to someone it's my own fault. It's not cause of how they played, but it's simply because I couldn't handle it or counter it.

I can get frustrated for it sure, and it can be annoying to deal with but I feel I cannot shout "That's cheap!" if I lost to it.

The same applies to characters. I may hate how some are played and get really frustrated with a few of them, but the bottom line is I cannot consider a character cheap just because of how a person chooses to play them or because of their movesets. I guess I can sort of understand spamming being seen as such, but I still feel like it's my own fault if I lost to it. No excuses.

If it was used effectively against me to the point I couldn't even get a stock off of them, should I really consider it as such to begin with?

So... Yeah, in short I can't really see much as cheap since it should be my own fault for allowing it to happen.

 

[Aphistemi]

People who are cheap, are the people who complain about your gameplay.

 

[Nona]

inb4Talk is cheap

It's cheap if it beats me and I can't beat it.

But seriously "cheap" isn't real to me. It's just a word I use when I'm getting sour

 

[phantom man]

"Talk is cheap" Heh,just kidding. But in really, I hate Duck Hunt because of the way you're mean't to play him or are encouraged to.He is a spamy character, and he is good at it too.

 

[kendikong]

Spamming is not cheap. It's cheap when you abuse op tactics. It doesn't usually take a lot of skill, hence the term "cheap".

Diddy players that don't do anything except banana, Hoo-Ha spam for example.

 

[Arrei]

I thought Fox's infinite jab combo/setup was cheap, as I don't think infinite combos are healthy for the state of a metagame.

 

[MonadoEmbassy]

I hate it when every time I'm on FG, I'm either against link or ZSS. Link players forgot that the A button exists, and ZSS players just get under my skin. All they ever do is neutral b, grab, up air (uair?) multiple times, up b and repeat. You would think I would be able to get past it after almost a year of playing, but I still have difficulty.

 

[TurboLink]

I hate it when every time I'm on FG, I'm either against link or ZSS. Link players forgot that the A button exists, and ZSS players just get under my skin. All they ever do is neutral b, grab, up air (uair?) multiple times, up b and repeat. You would think I would be able to get past it after almost a year of playing, but I still have difficulty.

This is hilarious coming from a CF main. xD

 

[MonadoEmbassy]

Well, a lot of things clicked after I got CF, so I really don't have trouble anymore. But yeah, before I was a DK main, and I kinda had some difficulty.

This is hilarious coming from a CF main. xD

 

[Splooshi Splashy]

Before I begin, allow me to mention a possibly often-referred-to book that brings up the idea of cheapness, and that book is Playing to Win by David Sirlin. No such discussion about cheapness will likely be complete without this book showing up, and for good reason: Sirlin has been in the competitive fighting game scene since the 90's, and he has the experience to back up his book with (To this day, Sirlin is STILL famous for his (ab)use of Crouching Medium Punch with Rose in Street Fighter Alpha 2, which he DOES go over in the book under "The Obsessed" chapter.). He's also one of the head figures involved in SSF2T HD Remix, Yomi, Pandante, Puzzle Strike, and the upcoming Fantasy Strike, so he has hands-on experience with trying to make a well-balanced game. To start us off, I'll link you to the 1st chapter in which the term cheap shows up in detail.

I have a whole mouthful of things to say regarding this subject. However, a considerable amount of what I would say would probably already be covered by that book, due to how thorough it is and how much of it I strongly agree with, due to how sound Sirlin's advice is. I legit agree with the statements that 1. Spamming is not cheap, UNLESS the move(s) in question that is/are being spammed legitimately has/have no answer(s), and 2. Camping is not cheap, UNLESS the campsite is tightly sealed to such an extent that there's practically no way to break into it, because proving such strategies to be defeat-able is much fun to me, for they ward off degeneracy, generate hype among the crowds, and adds depth to the combat. It's a part of why I LOVE MUs like Jr VS DH (goes on to the next page, plus the Jr boards's MU thread has more details from me regarding Jr's perspective) and DH VS Pac-Man (goes on the next page) and Custom Jr/DH VS ChrisGer (aka, Custom Villager, who I dub as the embodiment of ChrisG's UMVC3 Morrigan/Doctor Doom/Vergil team).

While it's not about Sm4sh specifically, many of its ideas are applicable to it. Thus, at the very least, I want to leave this book for the rest of us to read, so that many of us can mentally & even physically level up our game. I personally would highly recommend that book to anyone who wants to become a better competitive player in general, especially those who want to rise above the level of scrubdom. To this day, since I've heard of & read Sirlin's site during the late 2000's and the book itself within the last 5 years or so, I thank him & it for having knocked out many a scrub tendency within me. I personally ADORE the sections on Yomi and Attackers, especially Alex Valle's portion of it, for Yomi is what helps me read opponents (and sometimes get read. XD), baiting out certain actions from them. As for Valle's portion, as a fan of aggressive rushdown, it is a big part of why I play the way I do in virtually every competitve game out there, including here in Sm4sh, where such a style is apparently quite weak here in 1v1 settings (but stronger in teams, I would like to believe).

 

[pollo20x6]

It's possible (maybe), but not because of those reasons. How you can be cheap in Smash 4 hasn't been discovered yet. Even with Diddy, we never saw the meta game develop enough to know if he truly was OP.

Cheap is doing something that will almost always win and is unfair.
Meta Knight was cheap. He was winning every major tournament and analyzing his move set made it clear why. The proof was in the results.

People who complain about cheap tactics, like say Ness being cheap, have a real entitlement problem.
Like they're sooooo good, they're only losing because spamming is cheap or X character is broken.

Give the game some time to develop a solid meta, then protest. Until then, you're just b*tching.

 

[Dr. Dobis]

You know what's cheap? Getting on for glory while knowing your connection is laggy and playing pacman, rob, ness, link, or some other mindless spam character. Go take that to EVO you little punks.

Also, mario's uptilt > uptilt > uptilt > uptilt > uptilt > uptilt > uptilt > "combo"

 

[SpaghettiWeegee]

When people talk about something being "cheap" a lot of the time they're just sort of intuiting the definition of the word based on previous contexts it's been used in, but we can get more specific than that. The term itself comes from, if I'm not mistaken, the idea that strategies, tactics, and maneuvers all have a certain value prescribed to them, determined by the ratio of effort put in to reward taken out. When something is "cheap," it's a tactic that can be employed for low effort that yields high reward. Compare to "free," where the instigation of the maneuver is effortless, like in the case of getting a punish on an opponent in freefall.

At a high-level ideal, nothing "cheap" is worth doing because your opponent is so good they can counter low-effort tactics through their ability to understand and dissect them and exploit the weaknesses intrinsic to low-effort options (most detrimentally how predictable it makes their opponent-- you don't need to be a top player to be able to call out "boomerang. arrow. back roll." when fighting a For Glory Link). You get what you pay for, and if you buy cheap, your strategy, much like clearance rack clothing, is going to quickly unravel.

So in my mind, there are absolutely things that are cheap. However, if you lose to those things, it says more about you as a player than your opponent, so complaining about it only draws attention to your own skill deficit. Get good, son.

 

[Reila]

None of the poll options are cheap to me.

Spamming? Depending of what the character is spamming they are putting themselves in a huge disadvantage, if anything (like spamming counter). Though in lag matches, spamming projectiles can be annoying, but that is a problem with the online and not with spamming by itself.

Playing passively is the ideal for certain characters (the ones that focus on punishing mistakes, for example), so what are people expecting? A Ganondorf to be played rushdown? I am not a Ganondorf main, but ideally I think that is not how you are supposed to play him. Certain characters will want to keep pressuring you, while others will want you to approach them. It is just how it is, a gigantic roster like Smash 4's needs to have characters with a lot of different play styles.

All characters are viable (to some extent) and should be used, IMO. It's natural that many players will flock to whichever character is top tier due to the competitive nature, so there's nothing cheap about playing Sheik if you want to win, though personally I would recommend only playing a character if you LIKE them. Believe me, winning with a character you like feels much more satisfying.

So in short, it is impossible to be cheap in Smash, I think.

 

[MalcolmFlex]

I feel a few moves are definitely a little ridiculous; but it's easily countered if you know what you're doing. And if not, you can learn. People call Ness cheap; I usually play 2vs2 FG, and I usually ALWAYS hit them with the PK Fire + Back-Throw + Back-Kick/Headbutt into PK Thunder combo. These tactics usually net me anywhere from 3-7 kills a match -- and while those tactics may seem cheap, it's noted how easily a skilled player will avoid getting caught in those traps and counter me. Early on when I first started playing, competitive play was new to me, and I found myself constantly calling things cheap (such as Shulk's SUPER long counter), but after awhile you adjust and realize that "cheap" doesn't exist.

 

[BadLuckBrian]

Link's item spam is cheap as for close range characters it can be difficult to avoid everything and not getting hit by his OP sword or grabbed while approaching.

 

[TempestSurge]

I do think it's possible to be cheap in a game like this. I'm not talking about whether you lose to the tactic or not. That's beside the point. All I know is that the bottom line for some people is to win. And that's a strategy someone can use to win. I just see it no different from other strategies or play style 'types' that you either adapt and overcome or you don't and leave the opponent if it's a boring chore.

Some people don't care if what they're doing takes no effort or if its not the most advanced technique of their character. It's about winning lol. I don't know how referring to a tactic by its coined term counts as whining. I just know being cheap is a thing that you can come across in a game like this, millions of players, where you play to win and naturally I've just come to expect unorthodox play styles from time to time.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

There definitely is cheapness in Smash, even without items. Here's a scenario; you're playing Little Mac on For Glory, and you're opponent, instead of actually fighting you, stands by the ledge in a bid to try and gimp you. And will not leave that spot until you approach him, letting him gimp you. This is especially awful with Ness' B-Throw and F-Air shenanigans. This kind of **** isn't fun for me, it pisses me off because I'm stuck deciding if I should just sit around and hope he gives up on trying to bait the gimp or go in and just get gimped by back throws and aerials. That is so goddamn cheap it's not even funny!

You shouldn't rely on one-trick gimmicks to win against characters, because that's not proof you were better than them, just that you were so desparate to win that you deliberately tried to make me approach you just so you could get a gimp. It's not fun for the Mac, because they'll know you are baiting for a gimp and won't approach. An ego should never sink so low that they need to resort to baiting gimps out of Little Mac players; that's not just disrespectul, it's insulting. It's like they're saying that all they want to do is beat you just to erect their e-penis a little. It's not fun, it's not respectful and it sure as hell isn't fair.

 

[Reila]

There definitely is cheapness in Smash, even without items. Here's a scenario; you're playing Little Mac on For Glory, and you're opponent, instead of actually fighting you, stands by the ledge in a bid to try and gimp you. And will not leave that spot until you approach him, letting him gimp you. This is especially awful with Ness' B-Throw and F-Air shenanigans. This kind of **** isn't fun for me, it pisses me off because I'm stuck deciding if I should just sit around and hope he gives up on trying to bait the gimp or go in and just get gimped by back throws and aerials. That is so goddamn cheap it's not even funny!

You shouldn't rely on one-trick gimmicks to win against characters, because that's not proof you were better than them, just that you were so desparate to win that you deliberately tried to make me approach you just so you could get a gimp. It's not fun for the Mac, because they'll know you are baiting for a gimp and won't approach. An ego should never sink so low that they need to resort to baiting gimps out of Little Mac players; that's not just disrespectul, it's insulting. It's like they're saying that all they want to do is beat you just to erect their e-penis a little. It's not fun, it's not respectful and it sure as hell isn't fair.

That isn't cheap. Just because you don't know how to deal with campers, it doesn't mean camping is cheap.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

That isn't cheap. Just because you don't know how to deal with campers, it doesn't mean camping is cheap.

I'm not talking about camping out with projectiles; I can deal with that. I mean when someone literally does nothing but stand by the edge of a stage because they want to gimp you.

 

[link2702]

I'm not talking about camping out with projectiles; I can deal with that. I mean when someone literally does nothing but stand by the edge of a stage because they want to gimp you.

that's called them outsmarting you and using the a strategy that obviously is working on you. A little mac main who's serious about the character actually finds ways to deal with something so simple as their opponent standing by a ledge and waiting for em. Their opponent however, still knows this is one of their best positions against him, and should the mac mess up they can capitalize on it.

Should read the link above called "playing to win" Although I personally hate Sirlins tone and attitude in the post, it is technically correct as far as covering "cheap" in a game.

 

[pollo20x6]

There definitely is cheapness in Smash, even without items. Here's a scenario; you're playing Little Mac on For Glory, and you're opponent, instead of actually fighting you, stands by the ledge in a bid to try and gimp you. And will not leave that spot until you approach him, letting him gimp you. This is especially awful with Ness' B-Throw and F-Air shenanigans. This kind of **** isn't fun for me, it pisses me off because I'm stuck deciding if I should just sit around and hope he gives up on trying to bait the gimp or go in and just get gimped by back throws and aerials. That is so goddamn cheap it's not even funny!

You shouldn't rely on one-trick gimmicks to win against characters, because that's not proof you were better than them, just that you were so desparate to win that you deliberately tried to make me approach you just so you could get a gimp. It's not fun for the Mac, because they'll know you are baiting for a gimp and won't approach. An ego should never sink so low that they need to resort to baiting gimps out of Little Mac players; that's not just disrespectul, it's insulting. It's like they're saying that all they want to do is beat you just to erect their e-penis a little. It's not fun, it's not respectful and it sure as hell isn't fair.

Get good and find a way around it.
I have literally no problems with Ness because I main him and know his weaknesses.
Are you the best player in the world?
If not, then it's quite possible you just don't know how to deal with those tactics, therefore of course the other player will do them if you keep falling for it.

I feel a few moves are definitely a little ridiculous; but it's easily countered if you know what you're doing. And if not, you can learn. People call Ness cheap; I usually play 2vs2 FG, and I usually ALWAYS hit them with the PK Fire + Back-Throw + Back-Kick/Headbutt into PK Thunder combo. These tactics usually net me anywhere from 3-7 kills a match -- and while those tactics may seem cheap, it's noted how easily a skilled player will avoid getting caught in those traps and counter me. Early on when I first started playing, competitive play was new to me, and I found myself constantly calling things cheap (such as Shulk's SUPER long counter), but after awhile you adjust and realize that "cheap" doesn't exist.

That's a bad example for Ness because 2v2 FG doesn't have friendly fire on. It's much easier to land that stuff when friendly fire is off.

Link's item spam is cheap as for close range characters it can be difficult to avoid everything and not getting hit by his OP sword or grabbed while approaching.

It's not cheap. You just don't know how to get around it. If Link's item spam was so cheap, how come you don't see him winning any major tournaments?


Jeez, the reason this bothers me so much is because people cry all the time about cheap, then figure out a way around it, and suddenly they're like "oh, that wasn't cheap".
Sounds like a bunch of tweens crying over their first break up about how they're necer going to get over it when you KNOW they're going to get over it.

Just play the not-even-a-year-old game.

 

[Nexin]

To me, there really isn't anything that I consider "cheap" in any fighting games. Sure, there are annoying playstyles and janky tactics that require less effort than others for the same reward, but if you want to win, then you should not only try to figure out how to beat it, but you should also be willing to use every tool you have to triumph over your opponent. Calling something cheap prevents you from learning how to counter it as well as use it to your advantage.

Also, I just want to talk about passive play and zoning (I am starting to dislike the term camping) a bit. I really don't like how often I've seen players complain about that on the forums, especially when they use a character that is dangerous at close range like Luigi or Little Mac. It is foolish to be aggressive against either of those characters, so its on the player using them to find out how to get within their desired range safely.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

that's called them outsmarting you and using the a strategy that obviously is working on you. A little mac main who's serious about the character actually finds ways to deal with something so simple as their opponent standing by a ledge and waiting for em. Their opponent however, still knows this is one of their best positions against him, and should the mac mess up they can capitalize on it.

Should read the link above called "playing to win" Although I personally hate Sirlins tone and attitude in the post, it is technically correct as far as covering "cheap" in a game.

I'm dealing with them, but I shouldn't need to worry about if my opponent does that. It's an act of cowardice just to win, and it's disrespectful to the opposing player to sit there and wait for them to try punishing you being concrete-footed before doing anything. It's not comfortable because usually the people who do this are the same people who will spam PK Fire, back-throws and F-Airs as Ness; meaning that I either need to constantly roll to try and get potshots or make them play my game, which never happens because they just want to do the same thing over and over; run away and try camping me out or just throwing aerials to try and combo me.

And considering they don't even do anything else but these techniques, it's hardly me being outsmarted. Even if I play cautious and deal with them, they still spam anyways even when I manage to beat the tactic.

It's the same way projectile spamming Links get under my skin, except even worse because at least I can have safe options to dealing with them. Ledgecamper Nesses are always unsafe to approach because they'll always just spam grab as soon as you come near them or throw PK Fires, Thunders or Flashes out when you aren't. It's not like there's nothing to counter them, but it's still annoying. If you're going to try zoning me out, at least have the decency not to spam moves over and over, especially ones like PK Fire. Zoning isn't "lol imma spam dis move cuz i r skilled", we all know that. A good Link's zoning doesn't consist of throwing arrows all over just to try and keep someone away, good zoning is something that doesn't make you want to shut the game off. Incescantly spamming moves because it works on others of their skill level is not good zoning, it's conditioned spamming, not good zoning.

Stuff like Abadongo's is good zoning. Spamming arrows and bombs or PK Fire isn't, it's just projectile spam.

And I'm not saying you can't counter these techniques, but it's still annoying to deal with regardless. It's like how people call annoying; you can counter him, sure, but it's still not going to be fun to deal with, regardless.

 

[pollo20x6]

To me, there really isn't anything that I consider "cheap" in any fighting games. Sure, there are annoying playstyles and janky tactics that require less effort than others for the same reward, but if you want to win, then you should not only try to figure out how to beat it, but you should also be willing to use every tool you have to triumph over your opponent. Calling something cheap prevents you from learning how to counter it as well as use it to your advantage.

Exactly this.
It's like people expect people to play they want them to.
How is that fair? "Only play a certain way that I know how to play against. Anything I haven't currently figured out will be considered cheap" How dare your opponent exploit your often clearly displayed weaknesses.

Before calling something cheap, people oughta asks themselves "am I best?".
If the answer is no, you might still have a thing or two to learn.

Sometimes being better doesn't mean pulling off flashy combos. Sometimes being better simply means not having to stress yourself with flashy combos and reading your predictable opponent with grabs and spams; tactics that another good player could easily counter

I'm dealing with them, but I shouldn't need to worry about if my opponent does that. It's an act of cowardice just to win, and it's disrespectful to the opposing player to sit there and wait for them to try punishing you being concrete-footed before doing anything.

https://youtu.be/1iNXitepWWU
I don't see the professionals complaining.
I haven't seen professionals complain of spam either.

 

[Dastardly Ridleylash]

https://youtu.be/1iNXitepWWU
I don't see the professionals complaining.
I haven't seen professionals complain of spam either.

Because they're so good that spam is of little disturbance to them. Not everybody is godly, but it doesn't mean those people don't get to complain about things that irritate them.

Honestly, if we're saying professionals are the most important thing, clearly Sonic is top-tier in customs because Static Manny did so well with him there.

 

[pollo20x6]

Because they're so good that spam is of little disturbance to them. Not everybody is godly, but it doesn't mean those people don't get to complain about things that irritate them.

Honestly, if we're saying professionals are the most important thing, clearly Sonic is top-tier in customs because Static Manny did so well with him there.

And they never will amount to anything if their gut reaction to something they can't beat is "cheap".
Like entitled children who think everything is going to be given to them.
Practice and stop whining.

Static Manny would have to do consistently well. That's how tiers are formed. It isn't just "win a couple, auto-top tier".
It's data aggregated over multiple years.

 

[Reila]

if we're saying professionals are the most important thing, .

That seems to be a common mentality in Smash forums ^^ "If you aren't playing professionally, why are you even here?" lel

 

[The Legendary Big Boss]

I do not feel that much in Smash Bros. Wii U is cheap. Brawl is the only game where I personally have found some "cheapness." Brawl Meta-Knight was ridiculous, Snake's forward and up tilts were too disjointed and powerful, and Falco and DeDeDe had their chain-grabs especially Falco's who could go into a meteor smash. These overly strong assets crippled the viability of a lot of the cast. These parts of the game, while beatable, felt too easy to use for the reward they generated and in my opinion hurt the overall growth of skill in the meta-game. Some characters just could not hold there own when compared to these tactics.

 

[Dr. Dobis]

https://youtu.be/1iNXitepWWU
I don't see the professionals complaining.
I haven't seen professionals complain of spam either.

Wait a sec. First of all, we're not talking about Melee, smash 4 cant even be mentioned in the same sentance. as melee.
Hungrybox isn't playing against a lagging projectile spaming fox on a stage without platforms.

 

[kendikong]

Guys, standing at an edge and gimping little mac players is cheap. Its easy, requires no skill, and its almost certain victory. I do this all the time to little mac and even I admit its f*cking cheap. My friends like playing little mac, and I avoid resorting to cheap methods, so I never do this when playing my my buds. I'd rather fight them normally.

 

[Morbi]

If it is in the game, it is not cheap. Cheap is glancing at your friend's screen, cheap is unplugging your opponent's controller, cheap is abusing ill-phrased rules (Nyani, lol) or breaking oral agreements. People will call anything that they do not particularly enjoy "cheap" because they have bad sportsmanship and inept adaptive skills. Instead of trying to learn what THEY are doing wrong, they claim that their opponent is doing something "wrong."

 

[kendikong]

If it is in the game, it is not cheap. Cheap is glancing at your friend's screen, cheap is unplugging your opponent's controller, cheap is abusing ill-phrased rules (Nyani, lol) or breaking oral agreements. People will call anything that they do not particularly enjoy "cheap" because they have bad sportsmanship and inept adaptive skills. Instead of trying to learn what THEY are doing wrong, they claim that their opponent is doing something "wrong."

Learn the difference between "cheap" and "cheating"

 

[FallenHero]

Not sure I actually consider anything "cheap", but I picked spamming since sometimes a move can just be really difficult to punish and used over and over again to win.

 

[Morbi]

Learn the difference between "cheap" and "cheating"

You do realize that "cheap" in this context is a colloquial term, correct? Secondly, the only example of cheating on my list was unplugging a controller and I could easily replace that with "rabidly shaking your hands in your opponent's peripheral vision." As it stands, I do not believe in the existence of "cheap" based on my post. So I do not really need to learn the difference regardless. As far as I am concerned, it is not possible to be "cheap" in a video-game if IT IS IN THE VIDEO-GAME.

If it is in the game, it is not cheap.

 

[pollo20x6]

Guys, standing at an edge and gimping little mac players is cheap. Its easy, requires no skill, and its almost certain victory. I do this all the time to little mac and even I admit its f*cking cheap. My friends like playing little mac, and I avoid resorting to cheap methods, so I never do this when playing my my buds. I'd rather fight them normally.

How is that cheap? It's not my fault L. Mac's recovery is bad. What, am I gonna go to him? That's suicide against a good L. Mac. Use your opponent's weakness to win is not cheap. It's knowing the matchup. That's why Mac won't be top tier. His weaknesses are easy to exploit.

 

[Morbi]

How is that cheap? It's not my fault L. Mac's recovery is bad. What, am I gonna go to him? That's suicide against a good L. Mac. Use your opponent's weakness to win is not cheap. It's knowing the matchup. That's why Mac won't be top tier. His weaknesses are easy to exploit.

Perhaps that is his point, using your opponent's weakness against them IS cheap. To be fair, if spamming a move is "cheap" pretty much anything is fair game to be "cheap."

 

[pollo20x6]

If it is in the game, it is not cheap. Cheap is glancing at your friend's screen, cheap is unplugging your opponent's controller, cheap is abusing ill-phrased rules (Nyani, lol) or breaking oral agreements. People will call anything that they do not particularly enjoy "cheap" because they have bad sportsmanship and inept adaptive skills. Instead of trying to learn what THEY are doing wrong, they claim that their opponent is doing something "wrong."

That's not always true.
For example, Akuma was in Super Street Fighter 2 and he was cheap as heck. Every major tournament consisted of Akuma mirror matches. He was cheap.

Same with Meta Knight.
That's why he was banned.

It basically comes down to developers beijg capable of making mistakes.

However, it takes time for cheap tactics to be brought to light.
Someone winning 1 tournament with Akuma isn't strange.
Akumas winning every tournament? Now that's a red flag of cheapness.

And bringing it back to Smash, when have we ever seen Ness win a major tournament spamming PK Fire? Never. When have we ever seen anyone win any major tournament spamming? None so far.
Even with Meta Knight in Brawl, spamming wasn't done because it leaves you open.

Does Smash 4 have any cheap elements? No one can say. It's too soon. Is it possible? Maybe. An exploitable glitch. A overseen combo. Anything's possible.
Wait a couple years, people!
Learn the matchups, then whine.

Perhaps that is his point, using your opponent's weakness against them IS cheap. To be fair, if spamming a move is "cheap" pretty much anything is fair game to be "cheap."

Jeez, I hope that's not his point.
That's as "participant trophy" as you can get.

The meta game won't develop if we pull our punches and "play nice".

 

[Morbi]

That's not always true.
For example, Akuma was in Super Street Fighter 2 and he was cheap as heck. Every major tournament consisted of Akuma mirror matches. He was cheap.

Same with Meta Knight.
That's why he was banned.

It basically comes down to developers beijg capable of making mistakes.

However, it takes time for cheap tactics to be brought to light.
Someone winning 1 tournament with Akuma isn't strange.
Akumas winning every tournament? Now that's a red flag of cheapness.

And bringing it back to Smash, when have we ever seen Ness win a major tournament spamming PK Fire? Never. When have we ever seen anyone win any major tournament spamming? None so far.
Even with Meta Knight in Brawl, spamming wasn't done because it leaves you open.

Does Smash 4 have any cheap elements? No one can say. It's too soon. Is it possible? Maybe. An exploitable glitch. A overseen combo. Anything's possible.
Wait a couple years, people!
Learn the matchups, then whine.

I would probably argue that Akuma mains winning every tournament is a result of fairness, rather than "cheapness." Every single player has the ability to select Akuma and mirror matches are about as balanced as it can get. I see your point, but I would not personally use the term "cheap" to describe Akuma. Instead, I would assert that he is quite clearly the best character in the game. The same applies to Meta Knight. However, if the community has a general consensus and wishes to alter the rule-set to prevent this perceived "cheapness" from occurring, I have no issue with that.

 

[MistressRemilia]

Eh, Cheap in Smash is just like, the definition of something that is either unfairly good, or doesn't exactly require big skills. Its mostly temporary frustration through, you shouldn't take that too seriously, it's not like everyone plays like that scrubby player with his scrubby character you faced 10 minutes before raging in Smashboards.