Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Minor issue with your logic: in Smash 4 it is often extremely disadvantageous to be forced to approach your opponent. It doesn't matter if you have access to more options to kill someone with if 90 percent of them are shut down just by good shield usage.
Shiek can unavoidably true combo anyone in the game from center stage to the blast zone? This is news to me.
http://youtu.be/LKd9PDEdqpM
Not true combos. You can mix up your DI and air dodges to get out. it won't get you from center stage 0% to death unless you are inexperienced.
My main point is that with normal stages you still have to edge guard your opponent after back throwing them off the stage. At low percents, the Bthrow won't send them very far so they have plenty of options to get back onstage. An edge guard is possible, but that's where walk-offs are different. With a walk off there is no edge guard, and no extra effort besides the single throw and maybe an extra hit. The kill is cheesy because it requires no effort whatsoever, while any other stage you have to at least try to kill your opponent. That's my main problem with walk offs, adding in the fact that some characters can be 'carried' off the edge from the center of the stage and it just becomes ridiculous.
You don't understand - the backthrow is the extra effort. The setup is the positioning leading up to the backthrow.
Sheik can connect about 4 in a row as a true combo. Maybe 5. That's still an INSANE amount of horizontal distance, and it puts the victim in an awful position in which they're likely to get hit again too. You are a lost cause if you don't see how this gives a massive buff to Sheik, who is already the top character.
To be fair, one of the big reasons for banning permanent walkoffs (chaingrabs) is no longer a thing. I'm not entirely sure what you expected.
Um... Getting a grab in this game isn't hard at all. I could easily see a sonic camping by the ledge after gaining a small % lead. If the opponent has no good projectile, then they are forced to approach, and since Smash4 is closer to Brawl in neutral than say Melee, he who has to approach is usually screwed. Sonic could run forward with a dash grab, or predict a spot dodge and run past them into a pivot F-Smash, or simply wait and get the grab anyways. Next thing you know, the opponent is down a stock and now there's even more pressure to approach. The 'setup' into a grab isn't anything complicated. Looking at a match between two high level players, try and count how many times they grab each other. Now imagine every other grab is a stock lost.
If i've learned anything from my short time posting on these forums, it's that the smash community excels at this like no other.
That's not really the situation, though. Players put themselves in situations where they can get grabbed in matches all the time because the risk isn't typically that great. Similarly, people land a lot of moves that could be kill moves at a higher %, but when the time comes to get the kill, it's harder to land, because the opponent is respecting that option a bit more.
What risk? You mean losing the match?
Oh. No wonder walk offs are banned.
Those are some good points, but:
And then it still degrades into a "get a cheesy super-low% kill at the edge" match.
Yes. Low percent kills are what make walk-offs unique. Both players can get them. The way the stage is set up, percent matters a lot less. Call it rhetorical things like "cheesy" all you want, it simply witches the focus of skill from damage rack to kill moves and positioning. This is not inherently a bad thing.
I honestly don't see the skill in getting a cheesy kill on a walkoff, and I still see it as toxic to competitive play, but I don't mean any disrespect to your view.
A: Define cheesy
I really don't know what you mean by cheesy. If you chase the opponent to a dangerous place and they don't work to get out, and then they die to you reading their defensive option when they are immediately next to the blast zone, that kill was earned.
I think that what you are driving at is a shift in the current meta, from percent and combos to the simple kills and positioning. While that does sound interesting, the two different metas just can't mix. Say there's one player who is really skilled at cheesing kills on walk off stages, and another who is better as a player but can't keep up with the edge-camp mindset that Player 1 is bringing to the table. Basically, it devolves into the stage choice for who wins. Skilled player wins game 1, Cheese player wins game 2 on a walk off counter pick, and then they switch off winning games because of the stage alone. You could argue that the more skilled player would win the match regardless of stage choice, however there are definitely characters that would just 'win' on walk off stages, like Shiek or Sonic and make the matchup nearly impossible to beat.
Going up to someone at the blast zone and killing them isn't a read.
That's why you learn both play styles. There's a phrase that I often say in situations like this: "Git Good". Not to mention match ups are switched on lots of stages, some players just can't deal with transforming stages. I also don't think it's so incredibly swayed: many of the mechanics are very similar, so a lot of the same fundamentals are tested in both stages. I've yet to see any proof Sheik is dominant on this stage to an unfair extent.
Abyssal Lagiacrus
You're using that word again. "Cheesy". it's very vague and serves no purpose but a rhetorical one. You're saying "If x happened it would be bad because it is cheesy" is like me saying "x is bad because it is lumpy". It means nothing without a definition, and until you define it you can't say it's a bad thing, necessarily. I feel like you're argument is just saying "But I feel like it would be bad 'cause, I mean, it's bad!", which granted is only a few degrees below most other things in this thread, my own theory crafting included. This is why I feel like walk-offs are in a grey area.
'Git gud" as in, if you don't want to learn to deal with something, that's your fault. In context, my use of it was referring to the idea of 2 people only being good at one of the stage types each. Yeah, stages would impact the match a lot, but the one who knows both will win overall. So if one "hits gud" and learns both, hen he wins, and is therefore rewarded for being the more skilled player, and therefore it is competitive.
When I said it defeats the fundamentals of smash, I mean that it destroys the mechanics that the game is based around. If I camp the edge on a walk off, what difference does it make how much percent my opponent is at? 0%? 100%? 999%? They'll still die to a back throw regardless. Recoveries? Useless. You don't need to recover on a walk off. Edge guarding is not a thing, because unless your opponent is already dead then they are still on stage and can kill you just as easily as you can kill them. You know the phrase 'anyone can win once'? Walk off stages transform that into 'anyone can win' because you only need one confirm in neutral to take a stock, and then one more to win a match whereas a 'real match' should give the win to whoever consistently wins more in neutral (not taking into account edge guards, but again, there is no edge guard on a walk off), which is reflected by percents. Confirm in neutral, and optimize punishes. That IS smash. Even if it is still my opinion, those are the basic mechanics of the game. Hit your opponent until their percent is high enough to where they don't come back, whereas with walk offs it is simply 'hit your opponent'.
Honestly, they would probably try way too hard to "enjoy" the walkoffs and try and give good results. And yes, I have a problem with "learning to deal with something" if it's a cheesy walkoff that someone can and will abuse to get a 0% kill with because they don't think they can out-skill their opponent.
Ummmm… yes. Yes percent matters less. Yes recoveries are irrelevant. …So? I mean, obviously the game was designed with the idea of walk-offs in mind, so it's hard to say it 'destroys' the core fundamentals. And the rhetoric you use sounds apocalyptic and all but all it amounts to is "it changes things, and the ways in which it changes things are bad because e they are bad by nature", which is something I still don't understand.
Abyssal Lagiacrus
I'm not sure I see how the fact that the skill has something to do with the concept of early kills (both getting and avoiding them) suddenly makes learning something an invalid competitive skill. I feel like it's a jump in logic made by bias and emotion rather than a definitive line of logic.What I consider neutral is when both characters are on stage. On battlefield, Little mac can kill (assuming % is high enough) Another little mac at any point with an upsmash. They both have the same tools at their disposal: Shield, Grab, Roll/Spotdodge, specials, standards, smashes. They can also jump for aerials but my example uses two little macs so that's not likely. They both are looking to bait out a mistake by their opponent and net a combo or kill, or set up for an edge guard/landing situation. If one is offstage and one is onstage, then it's an edge guard opportunity for the Mac on stage. The offstage Mac has to recover or die, and his options are only air dodge, specials, and aerials. The same goes for landing options where one mac is above the other but both are over the stage. So when there is no off stage when playing on a stage with walk offs, It's only neutral. How close you are to the blast zone doesn't matter because both players have the same tools and both players will die if nudged to the left/right a little. It changes the winning strategy from win neutral->combo/outplay enemy->net kill->win to win neutral-> winUmmmm… yes. Yes percent matters less. Yes recoveries are irrelevant. …So? I mean, obviously the game was designed with the idea of walk-offs in mind, so it's hard to say it 'destroys' the core fundamentals. And the rhetoric you use sounds apocalyptic and all but all it amounts to is "it changes things, and the ways in which it changes things are bad because e they are bad by nature", which is something I still don't understand.
Not to mention I'd hardly call being immediately at the edge at neutral. That's a disadvantage.
And @
Yeah, that's an interesting idea there. I feel like that definition of neutral is very much from a non-walkoff outlook, and a new definition of neutral would have to be created for walk-offs, because being near the edge will obviously change your decision making and possibly gives one player the advantage.
