What do the Melee Legends think of P:M?

[Warhawk]

I am aware what subjective is.. I'm just saying that the statement "Melee has a higher skill cap" is not subjective. It is objective.

However it is ALSO wrong.

I'm saying that PM has a higher skill cap. Now that doesn't make it a better game (although I personally think it is), but it is objective that there is more things in PM. There are more viable characters sprouting more common matchups and demanding more knowledge. There is all the same tech that was in Melee (wavedash etc) but with additional tech from brawl (dacus) which together makes a higher cap.

Again.. this isn't me saying PM > Melee. But I am saying that objectively PM has a higher skill cap.

Nah, his statement as well as yours is pretty subjective. Whatever game takes more skill depends on what skills each person sees as more important to what they view as overall skill. You are just as wrong as he is (although he was much more abrasive about it).

 

[Shadow Huan]

isn't this thread supposed to be about what "Melee Legends" think of Project M?

so wouldn't it follow that anyone posting opinions here who isn't a "Legend" shouldn't be taken seriously?

personally I don't give a damn what so called Legendary melee players think of Project M, if they like playing it that's great. if they don't that's okay too. I used to be a major brawl trash talker, but I realized that I don't have the patience to learn it in a competitive level. if others can then more power too them.

I play PM for the fun I get out of the buffed Bowser. I have to out think the opponet and they have to out think me in order to win. something I picked up from dabbling in other fighters (and really trying to get the controls and tech for Injustice: GaU down while playing against other people) is that you can tell when someone out thinks you to beat you. as opposed to "play faster than the other player, and preform tech better" which is what competitive melee felt like to me.

which makes the mental battles of competitive brawl more like a traditional fighter in a way, which is sort of ironic lol

now, everyone should follow my advice from the beginning of this novel and disreguard everything I just said, since I'm not a melee legend

 

[JOE!]

Nah, his statement as well as yours is pretty subjective. Whatever game takes more skill depends on what skills each person sees as more important to what they view as overall skill. You are just as wrong as he is (although he was much more abrasive about it).

Well, no.

Take checkers vs chess. There are far more variables in chess to worry about while playing than in checkers, so all else being equal: wouldn't chess take more skill as you have to factor in many more variables into the gameplay?

 

[Sixth-Sense]

I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been locked already considering how extremely off-topic it got starting on page 1 haha

 

[Fortress]

I'm surprised that this thread hasn't been locked already

Because Melee.

 

[Nausicaa]

Bcuz Melee Legend

 

[Sixth-Sense]

Because Melee.

i can't believe this is actually sound a argument in my head

 

[Chesstiger2612]

I think the main problem in balancing the cast out at this point is, as mentioned, the different learning curves of characters. In Melee, some Mid Tiers might be better than Fox/Falco at a casual level and Fox/Falco are better if both (the Mid Tier player and the Spacie player) get better. From a casual standpoint, thats in some sense fair, because with 2 players exactly same strong at different levels different characters win. But a balanced game should aim to have a balance at high skill level (tournament level etc.)
The problem is, obviously, the newly buffed former Mid Tiers are now in every aspect at least as good as the Top Tiers and better. If you are not at the best-of-the-best-level that only few players have reached, they will perform better and only at this very top skill level there is some kind of balance. Is this how a balanced game should look like? You can't expect everybody to be at this highest level and you also want balance at other levels.
So, I think that every character has to designed in a way to get at least similar learning curves. This isn't always only achievable with making the character tech-skill intensive but can also occur by deeper strategic skills you need to play the character perfect. So, essentially, every character needs to be as hard to play as others, with the possibilty of different barriers on your way to top (tech-skill, precision, strategy), depending on character. Only then we can speak of full balance.

 

[Warhawk]

Well, no.

Take checkers vs chess. There are far more variables in chess to worry about while playing than in checkers, so all else being equal: wouldn't chess take more skill as you have to factor in many more variables into the gameplay?

I'm not too fond of comparisons to chess or checkers to these games because they in my mind oversimplify things (plus I think the difference in variables from chess to checkers is greater than project m to melee). I will say however that I think sometimes NOT having as many options can add as much skill as having more options. It just changes the focus of what are the most important learned skills for the game. In some ways by having so many tools it sometimes seems to take from certain skills. Say for instance more tools to approach your opponent were added. In a way as long as you know about and can apply these new tools, approaching becomes easier, you don't have to be as innovative with the limited toolset you had before to come up with ways to get in on your opponent or to force your opponent to do something that you can then exploit to get a first hit. Conversely this can be argued to make defending against successful approaches by your opponent more difficult, you now have a wider set of variables to account for as the defender. The focus of the game is changed, but at least in my opinion the amount of skill is not, just the particular skills in demand. I don't think you can determine which game requires more skill and I'm not sure why you should bother. I think what's more important is knowing what skills you enjoy learning and applying and which game suits that demand from you better.

 

[JOE!]

Indeed, less variables can in turn make each skill that much more valuable as it takes more "real estate" per variable, if that makes sense.

That said, there are definite examples of objectivity between the two when you do in fact highlight certain aspects. Matchup Knowledge is the big one here, as say even in melee you only had to know say like... 6 Matchups for your given character (Lets say you are a Sheik player, so you need to know say... Fox/Falco/Marth/Jiggs/Falcon/Sheik Ditto as pure example). Adding even 1 more character to make 7 matchups that one would need to know would objectively make the person who knows how to handle 7 matches as opposed to 6 more skillful, as the 6 the latter knows is included in the repertoire of the former. Even if they are weighted, looking at it like this seems to imply that more relavent matchups = more skill needed with matchup knowledge being a skill, if all other things are the same.

 

[Warhawk]

The way I see it that's just another skill shift. With more characters and matchups, matchup knowledge becomes a much more important skill, but fundamentals become less stressed. Knowing the the exploitable tricks and potential counters to those tricks in each matchup becomes much more important than before to winning the matchups and fundamentals become less important as more emphasis is put on knowledge on the intricacies of a wider variety of characters. Obviously, you still need both skills to win, but that's mostly true for both melee and project M, the difference in this instance is the magnitude of importance for both skills in each game.

 

[JOE!]

Why would fundamentals suddenly lessen? Look it it like this:

You need fundamentals in both scenarios to be good, but one scenario has more matchups you also need to learn. COMPARATIVELY, fundamentals would be lesser in the (7) example than the (6), but it is still the same "amount", if not more thanks to even more tricks available that are global like the RAR and B-Reversal stuff.

 

[Warhawk]

People can win with worse fundamentals than another player if matchup knowledge is more important. If a player doesn't know how to effectively overcome unique strategies to a character they're facing there are scenarios where they can have better spacing and stage control or a number of other things than their opponent and still lose. It even happens in melee (not all that often though, mostly used to happen with old puff matches). Like I said, they're both still important, but there is a focus now in one skill over the other. You can ever make an argument there is a change in the way matchup knowledge is tested, it could be argued that it is more important to know a larger number of matchups now than it is to know more matchups completely inside and out.

 

[JOE!]

You can ever make an argument there is a change in the way matchup knowledge is tested, it could be argued that it is more important to know a larger number of matchups now than it is to know more matchups completely inside and out.

Wait, isn't that the same thing? Know more matchups / know a larger number of matchups (it's implied that MU knowledge would mean a good level of knowledge here, no?).

Anywho, these are all assumptions based on say, two parties that have great fundamentals and MU knowledge lets say. If one of them knows 6 matchups and the other 7 with the same level of depth, wouldn't the guy with 7 have more skill than the 6?

 

[Warhawk]

Wait, isn't that the same thing? Know more matchups / know a larger number of matchups (it's implied that MU knowledge would mean a good level of knowledge here, no?).

Anywho, these are all assumptions based on say, two parties that have great fundamentals and MU knowledge lets say. If one of them knows 6 matchups and the other 7 with the same level of depth, wouldn't the guy with 7 have more skill than the 6?

I'm saying if you play 8 matchups all the time more likely than not you will know each of those 8 matchups much better and more in-depth than someone else who knows 40 matchups well.

And to your situation, yes I'd say that player knowing 7 matchups is more skilled, but if two people put equal time into playing a game, but with one playing a game with 8-10 matchups and another playing a game with 35-40 matchups, unless there is a significant talent gap the former is going to know individually his 8-10 matchups much better than the other person knows his 35-40 matchups individually. In the case of the former, depth of knowledge in each matchup is much more important to their success at their game than it is to the person who has to know 35-40 matchups. Not saying the latter can't know 35-40 matchups well, but with the same amount of play time and talent the person learning 8-10 matchups will know each individual matchup better.

 

[Sixth-Sense]

this thread is incredible! It reminds me of Ditto and how it can change into anything.....

 

[JOE!]

I'm saying if you play 8 matchups all the time more likely than not you will know each of those 8 matchups much better and more in-depth than someone else who knows 40 matchups well.

And to your situation, yes I'd say that player knowing 7 matchups is more skilled, but if two people put equal time into playing a game, but with one playing a game with 8-10 matchups and another playing a game with 35-40 matchups, unless there is a significant talent gap the former is going to know individually his 8-10 matchups much better than the other person knows his 35-40 matchups individually. In the case of the former, depth of knowledge in each matchup is much more important to their success at their game than it is to the person who has to know 35-40 matchups. Not saying the latter can't know 35-40 matchups well, but with the same amount of play time and talent the person learning 8-10 matchups will know each individual matchup better.

Right, the key difference in this scenario is time.

Although melee has a decade or so advantage, much if nearly all the HUGE development didn't happen for quite some time, and even then P:M gets to use that as a base for a sort of kick-start. For example, people are jumping into P:M with the basic global fundamentals down, and even expansive MU knowledge for the number of characters that were largely unchanged / not radically changed (especially among melee tops). Even though melee is still going strong, most of it has been figured out already. P:M is taking all that and building upon it, so I don't think it is really subjective that P:M will have a higher skill ceiling granted it has -more- you need to know (and perform base don character and stages) than it's predecessor.

 

[Warhawk]

Even though melee is still going strong, most of it has been figured out already. P:M is taking all that and building upon it, so I don't think it is really subjective that P:M will have a higher skill ceiling granted it has -more- you need to know (and perform base don character and stages) than it's predecessor.

This statement seems to suggest that there's some end-all skill level that can be reached and I heavily disagree with that. I don't think there is a skill ceiling. Even as old as it is, the top level strategies and gameplay continues to change in melee. In competitive anything, if you don't change or improve, you fall behind. With no end-all skill level to be attained, naturally a game with more variables in matchup knowledge and stage knowledge to be obtained has a greater focus on skill in a more general sense with both these skills and/or with these skills become a greater focus in overall skill than other aspects such as fundamentals. Even with Project M players coming from melee players a melee/Project M hybrid that has the same amount of play time and talent as someone who just played melee with all of their time is going to likely know those 8-10 melee matchups really well and also have general matchup knowledge on a lot more characters, but I really doubt the person that plays melee with all of their time won't know those 8-10 matchups more intricately than the melee/Project M hybrid and I'd assume other skills would be similarly affected. I don't think you can objectively say what a more skilled game is in this case, especially in an instance where the games are so close and it just gets messy to talk about. I think in games of much less variables, you can much more effectively do this as a game with one variable vs a game with two variables you are probably still going to be able to master both as effectively as the one. Once you get into games as complex as melee and Project M I think that any skill ceiling disappears and skills start to get more generalized as more skills are added.

The way I see both of these games honestly is that melee doesn't have enough matchup and stage knowledge for what I would like and Project M has too much matchup and stage knowledge (maybe? not actually sure anymore how many counterpicks they use anymore, but I think 9 neutrals with no counterpicks is perfect) for my liking. I think the more matchups there are the more "gimmicks" begin to become prevalent. I think too few matchups and it sometimes gets stale to watch.

 

[Chesstiger2612]

I see it the way there is a certain skill ceiling but you can always improve and will never reach it. It is a bit like that with games with rating ladders you can still improve but it will not have as much effect because it will help you in less situations etc. This theory models with the limited growth (dunno if it is the right word) of skill(y-axis) in comparison to afford(x-axis). Imagine there also was a rating system in Melee or P:M. At a certain level, people can't advance to even more points because they sometimes lose to people because of stage choice, random factors (other one gets some lucky reads) etc. When they are not on that ceiling-like level where it is almost impossible to advance further, this is no problem whatsoever because they gain points through other games but if they reached that level, maybe they play against someone who is many points below them but he wins in 5% because of reads and that costs you as many points as the 95% wins against him gain you.

 

[JOE!]

What I meant by that bolded part was that even though it is still evolving, I doubt anything like groundbreaking or huge will come out of it again any time soon. Even then, granted P:M's engine is close enough / etc, anything discovered in melee could potentially cross over to P:M as well (or in fact be changed to incorporate this new thing). That doesn't mean their is a skill "cap", but at the same time -eventually- most everything in Melee will be discovered which is sort of like a skill ceiling in that at that point there isn't much room left to go upward.

Boiled down, the way I see it is that Melee is "inside" P:M for the most part, which for all intents and purposes makes comparing the two kinda weird and easy at the same time. It's like having two identical houses but one of them has a bigger back yard: they are functionally the same, but the one with the bigger yard can do more like have a pool, bigger cookouts, have a dog that can run around back there and so on. Even though the house with the smaller yard is just as good, and maybe even has a bit nicer furniture, it is ultimately limited in that it has less land (as well as how the other house can also get nice furniture on par with this one with time). If that makes sense?

Pretty much the BIG limiting factor here is time, but given enough of it who is to say there won't be people who know like...20-30+ matchups as well as melee vets know their 8-10?

 

[Warhawk]

What I meant by that bolded part was that even though it is still evolving, I doubt anything like groundbreaking or huge will come out of it again any time soon. Even then, granted P:M's engine is close enough / etc, anything discovered in melee could potentially cross over to P:M as well (or in fact be changed to incorporate this new thing). That doesn't mean their is a skill "cap", but at the same time -eventually- most everything in Melee will be discovered which is sort of like a skill ceiling in that at that point there isn't much room left to go upward.

I'm not sure quite what you are getting at here... I mean I don't think all that many game-changing skills are left to come out of project M, seeing how much it shares with melee's mechanics and how deliberately the new technology was designed to fit into its own individual niche. Most player skill improvement is done little bit by little bit, and a lot of times its not about what's new but what changes is how the old tools are applied. I remember people talking about some "new" technique Mango was doing a few years ago and it wasn't anything new at all but an old technique that he was reapplying. As metagames shift sometimes old techniques become prevalent again, I don't think novel discoveries and/or applications are always needed for skill improvement, sometimes an improvement is just executing something better than you already do.

Boiled down, the way I see it is that Melee is "inside" P:M for the most part, which for all intents and purposes makes comparing the two kinda weird and easy at the same time. It's like having two identical houses but one of them has a bigger back yard: they are functionally the same, but the one with the bigger yard can do more like have a pool, bigger cookouts, have a dog that can run around back there and so on. Even though the house with the smaller yard is just as good, and maybe even has a bit nicer furniture, it is ultimately limited in that it has less land (as well as how the other house can also get nice furniture on par with this one with time). If that makes sense?

With regards to viable characters and stages I guess, I don't know I still prefer to view them both as their own separate games. That example to me doesn't illustrate the mechanical differences between the two or even how differences in characters and stages change the way the games themselves are played competitively.

Pretty much the BIG limiting factor here is time, but given enough of it who is to say there won't be people who know like...20-30+ matchups as well as melee vets know their 8-10?

This is completely dependent on whether you view skill as reaching a ceiling or stagnating. I don't think improvement with these games ever ends, at least it hasn't shown to yet, and so I think with that in mind naturally players focusing on 8-10 matchups are better at those individually than people that have to look at 30+ matchups (not that either is better at worse) if improvement never tails off with time. There's just so much based around how you view skill and what's better or worse for it that I don't think it can be objectively defined for these two games. I can see the argument for either game requiring more skill, its just about what you value more to me.

 

[JOE!]

That is what I have been saying this entire time... given the same skill-sets, P:M objectively has the same skills needed as Melee, but it has more to work on in match-up + stage knowledge (+Character specifics), so objectively more skill would be needed. You can make the argument of which you value more, but that itself is SUBJECTIVE as it varies by individual. What isn't as subjective is that pretty much all of melee except for a few oddball stages / pichu is present in P:M in some manner, when you add more relevant (to the meta) content, there is more that needs to be worked with as a player than in melee, that in time would rival the general "deep 8-10 matchups" melee had across a HUGE array of characters and across more stages.

 

[Warhawk]

I would still argue against it being objectively more skilled and that's why (as far as I know) there isn't a whole lot of top placement from top players of one game in the other aside from Mew2King (just good at every damn game). If we focus just on just matchup and stage knowledge I guess you can swing it that way (although the skill level required to be competitive I would argue doesn't change, just how those skills have to be spread), but like I mentioned before that's not the whole story and different mechanics change the way the game is played as well. Technical execution is generally higher in melee, the edgegame is significantly different between the games, recovering is easier generally, neutral game is played somewhat different because of new tools (can be argued to be easier to get in with more approach tools like RAR), pressure game seems more simple in project M due to different shield mechanics, punish/combo game in project M has a more scripted feel with some characters as opposed to a flowchart feel, and more. There's too many differences for me to feel comfortable calling anything objective with regards to required skill for each game.