what is cheapness

[TheBuzzSaw]

This conversation is straying from the point, but do you guys think that there will be cheapness, or what most people just call glitches will be in brawl?

Cheapness will never go away. People call excess rolling cheap even though rolling is an intended game mechanic and is far from unfair/broken. Glitches and exploits will certainly be discovered over time, as well.

 

[I T I]

People still roll?

 

[PwnyRide]

What is 'cheap'?

Cheap is just another word for 'effective'.

 

[Tobi-]

Nobody has still answered why they nerfed kirby and ness. When this issue comes to the makers of the game, it seems they follow the balancing issue, and not the "play to win" attitude. I'm going to re-quote my post just in case since nobody replied.

Hmm. Why do you think we have nerfs? I wonder. It certainly isn't because they were broken. Actually, according to your theory, no character is broken. So, why was kirby from SSB nerfed to death in melee? Hmmm..Why was fox nerfed in Brawl..Hmm..?

Quotes from smash wiki-

"Unlike Captain Falcon, who also made the transition from unlockable to default without being affected much, Ness appears to have been "nerfed"; that is, his fighting ability has been decreased, making him a much lower-quality character, much to the dismay of Ness fans, most noticeably his dair."

"Kirby (カービィ, Kābii) is a character in all three games of the Super Smash Bros. series. Although tier-wise he was one of the best characters in the original Super Smash Bros., in Super Smash Bros. Melee, he became one of the worst

Going by the people who disagree with cheapness, They are basically saying there is no such thing as excuses, no matter what. So tell me why Kirby went from being top-tier best character in the game, to the worst character? Now why in the world did the makers do that?

Also it seems like everyone is now just repeating what others said in the thread, in the previous posts. Almost the same exact words too.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

People still roll?

Peach's roll is sick.

 

[sfox8]

Nobody has still answered why they nerfed kirby and ness. When this issue comes to the makers of the game, it seems they follow the balancing issue, and not the "play to win" attitude. I'm going to re-quote my post just in case since nobody replied.



Going by the people who disagree with cheapness, They are basically saying there is no such thing as excuses, no matter what. So tell me why Kirby went from being top-tier best character in the game, to the worst character? Now why in the world did the makers do that?

Also it seems like everyone is now just repeating what others said in the thread, in the previous posts. Almost the same exact words too.

I agree with this. By that logic it doesn't make much sense for characters to be "nerfed" and no one can deny that Kirby was the most nerfed character in this whole series (here's to hoping he gets his power back in bawl).

And yep. Rolls are still efficient. Especially if your character isn't a great wavedasher, or you just suck at it (I use ICs mostly so I don't have to worry about that, really).

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Simple. The designers obviously felt that certain characters are overpowered, so they alter them in hopes of achieving perfect balance. They are just bad at it, sometimes.

 

[sugarpoultry]

What is 'cheap'?

Cheap is just another word for 'effective'.

Quoted for Truth.

If it works, it works.

 

[Cereal Rabbit]

I'm pretty sure it's anything that works effectively. Something that is difficult to counter or hard to figure out how to counter.

Mewtwo's Roll = @_______@

 

[Yaya]

Wow, I've never seen sugarpoultry post in the Brawl rooms before, except for the SMYN thread on Week 23.
Only because Buzz was on it and she made a cameo.

 

[MookieRah]

When this issue comes to the makers of the game, it seems they follow the balancing issue, and not the "play to win" attitude.

Very rarely do game makers know how to or really care about balance in games that much. They just pull out the nerf bat and smack em up a bit and hope for the best.

Mewtwo's Roll = @_______@

It's alright in moderation.

 

[Yaya]

what is cheapness

Sheik.

 

[sugarpoultry]

Wow, I've never seen sugarpoultry post in the Brawl rooms before, except for the SMYN thread on Week 23.
Only because Buzz was on it and she made a cameo.

Eh, I like to get around here and there. But your right, I rarely venture out of my sig shop or subscribed threads.

 

[bjdavis420]

I have to agree that "cheap" gets thrown around too much. If you screw up, and they get a very low % death, then its your fault. The item argument is different because of the fact that the items appear randomly throughout the stage. I hate items, but some of my friends will only play with items on (8 stock, 4 person ffa, with items, UNBELIEVABLY annoying). The fact that items appear randomly doesnt make them cheap, but they alone can greatly change the outcome of the game, sometimes to a point where skill doesnt even matter.

An example of this happened to me just a few days ago. Jiggs missed a rest, so I was charging a smash with marth, and bam, a bomb drops right between us. How unbelievably stupid is that. Final outcome, both died, thanks game.

Its because of things like this that got items banned (never fails that the one capsule you dont dodge explodes) not because they were "cheap".

In terms of cheap play, I think that there can be cheap play, but it is necessary to compete on higher levels. IMO chain grabs and wave shines are in this category, but they are also great techniques that take a lot of skill to use (against another competent player). Also, cheap might not be the correct term. I would call these techniques dirty, and i dont really mean this in a bad way. Dirty works better here because they take a decent amount of skill to use (cheap normally means they dont take much skill IMO) and they usually work well.

So next time fox kills you 4 times without doing more than 20% damage each time, call him dirty, because he fights dirty, but he is also awesome.

DIRTY

 

[Saor Gael]

"Fighting more coneventionally" depends on what you define as convention.

I don't see why convention always mean cater to the person who has the least amount of skill.

The only convention I see is what the game physically allows vs. what it does not allow.

As a player beginning competitive play, I do not want people to hold back, its a lose lose situation.

1)Player holds back and I still lose. Wow I must really suck then.

2)Player holds back and I win. Yay I get to feel like the mainstream kid who wins at the special olympics.

Any player that needs self efficacy by playing with restrictions needs to stop lying to themselves, OR surrond themselves with ONLY players that feel the same way they do. Any other situation with result in ego defense mechanism using and delusional behavior.

Way to misquote me about convention. I wasn't saying it was to cater to the person who has the least amount of skill.

By your definition, you'd even use bugs and cheats to win. The game technically "allows" them.

I was actually pointing out the good reasons you shouldn't completely pound your opponent.

Scenario 1:: You sit at the edge as Fox and instantly spike him into oblivion every time he comes near. Of course, maybe he learns from you, and then he sits at the other end as Fox. A lot of fun!

Scenario: Use conventional tactics to rack up some damage, then go for a KO. Don't sweat it as if you have thousands of dollars on the line like in some tournament.

If you take it easy on them, the opponent might actually learn something, and THEN when they're more skilled they can actually give you an interesting match at a competitive level.

How is a move cheap because my opponent does not utilize it?
For that matter, if it is quick and easy to perform, but not easily countered, why does my opponent neglect to use it on me? If a move allows for a better chance of winning, why refrain from using the technique?

Same as above. If you use one extremely effective combo against your opponent, then they'll put down their controller and stop playing you. Good job, you're king of the dung hill.

What is "conventional" fighting? How do you define a conventional fighting style? Why not chain throw your opponenet 50 times instead of once? for that matter, why is it the loser who determines what is considered "conventional" ?
Unless i opponenet simply is unable to do the techinque (his controller is broken, i knock him unconscious, he is blind and ********) then its fair game.

It's funny you both challenge my use of the word conventional when it's such an easily defined term.

The Smash Dojo has about this. The goal of the game is to rack up damage on the opponent, and then knock them off the side. That's conventional. You might liken it to conventional warfare, where two armies meet each other in open conflict.

Unconventional tactics are usually the most effective in real life and in games. Like spiking someone from the edge, or guerilla warfare.

But once again, you're just going to make someone who isn't at your skill level not want to play you.

I'm sure someone will interpret this to mean "play this way all the time". I'm not saying to be the Duke of Tsung. I'm saying if you use a tactic your opponent can't defend against, if you clearly out-class them, you gain nothing, except a pathetic pride of being able to beat those who are obviously less skilled than you.

If you think ahead, though, you might get some more interesting competition.

 

[Tobi-]

So next time fox kills you 4 times without doing more than 20% damage each time, call him dirty, because he fights dirty, but he is also awesome.

DIRTY

And it is also why fox is nerfed in Brawl. call cheap whatever name you want, but the concept still lies there. And by cheap I really wasn't referring to controlled variables such as exploits. Cheap can almost go in the same category as broken, because if a character is broken, he is also cheap.

 

[Chaosblade77]

If there is no such thing as "cheap" why aren't items and certain stages allowed in tournaments, why is chain grabbing limited?

I think if something is truly "cheap" then it is also banned (from anything official at least), but I don't think cheap goes as far as some people take it.

 

[sugarpoultry]

Yes, Broken can be the same as cheep. But I think Broken would be banned, and cheep can still be played.

 

[EggBomb]

I think cheapness is a technique someone uses that takes fun out of the game just so they can win. I don't think the thought of "cheapness" is made up by "amateur" players. That type of statement is said by players that only play to win rather then have fun, while overlooking the fact that what is "cheap" usually involves almost no skill to do, but yet is praised as being a "pro" tactic or a "good" move.

I'll give some examples from both games:

SSB64:

1) Fox stands back as others fight and shoots lasers at them. You approach him. He throws you, runs away and repeats.

2) Ness throws you off the edge and you're Meteor spike'd. If you make it back, he repeats.

3) Continual use of instant kills like Sleep and the Fire Uppercut.


SSBM:

1) Friend uses Marth. ALL he does is FSmash, which knocks you off the edge and then proceeds to edgeguard with it. You make it back and he'll try to knock you off again with the same FSmash.

2) Only using almost instant kill moves, like Sleep or the Fire Uppercut.


I can beat these guys with no problem, but it is in no way fun to play them. If anything it shows a LACK of skill on their part, yet by saying only"amateur" players call things cheap you are defending people like this that rely only on a single tactic. Cheapness does exist. Yes, there are def ways around it, but that doesn't make it not cheap or fun to play against.

I mean, what do you call someone in SF2 who only uses E Honda's rapid punch move to get you in the corner? Yes, you can get around it and can use projectiles if you're quick enough, but is it fun?

 

[slikvik]

cheap is a scrubs term for efficiency. you scrubs need to read this http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm

 

[Brasil]

Been a while since I posted...hell, I never post to begin with...but I just wanted to throw something in here.

It's kind of nice that I saw this thread now, because I've recently gotten back into Smash 64 (I'm lazy as all hell and don't feel like hooking up my GCN or Wii), and have weekly Rock Band/Smash Bros game nights with my friends. Smash 64 is still insanely great, but if there's one thing I find incredibly, utterly, horridly cheap, it's the shield-lock.

Playing dirty, fine. If me or my friends can get kills by chain-grabbing into a wall, then hit on the rebound, more power to us. I love when we use some really obscene strategies to kill each other.

But shield-lock...holy hell. In Melee it wasn't too bad, but in Smash 64...it seems like nearly any and every rapid-fire attack can keep your shield out. Is it just me? Am I not doing something right? Maybe it's more to do with stun frames? I dunno. All I know is that the paralysis doesn't seem normal.

For Brawl, I really hope they don't have as much stun and shield-lock. It would piss me off so much, because parts of Smash 64 are unplayable because of it.

 

[trademark0013]

^^^ pretty much (refering to slikvik

cheapness = gayness = good = winning, no?

 

[sugarpoultry]

Basically they hate us for putting the time and effort to learn advanced tactics and be relatively good at a game.

 

[trademark0013]

Disclaimer: I was at a professional level in Halo: CE. I know what I'm talking about.

A good example is also in Halo: CE. The ghost, was cheap. It was completely broken in a few situations. Mainly when you're on foot or in a vehicle. Which is pretty much 9/10's of the game. A skilled ghost pilot in a small game couldn't really die. A skilled ghost pilot will 100% kill you in a tank. A skilled ghost pilot will 100% kill you if you're on foot and can't find cover immediately.

sry for dbl post but wth halo tourneys do u go to where they have vehicles?

 

[Agent CC]

Well, it seems that there is a majority vote that true skill is cheapness, glitches and other bs are really cheap, and repetitive moves are the definition of cheap. Seems that we have a good list so far.

What about the stage issue that was brought up?
Do people just decide that a stage is not legit for a tournament or is there real issue behind that?I can understand doing a flat stage with no variation and no items, because I have been doing it for a couple years. But why? Wasn't it the true fun of smash when it first came out to grab that heart and piss off your opponent, or to grab the pokeball just to see what comes out?
I believe that the fun in smash has been replaced by new tedious actions. Seriously I almost get no fun out of smash unless we do something new, or what is called cheap now of days. That is all that I have seen that cheapness is, and it is the dying past of smash. I have seen smash progress from the first game to this new sequel, and I hope it can inject the series with fifty CC's of fun and 40 volts of inivation.

 

[trademark0013]

well some people are competitive gamers, so these cheap tactics/glitches are fun to them. i'm included in that group.

i think everyone knows some stages are jus comletely ******** for competative play and need no explantion as to why

when i first played smash me and my friend turnd items off. also, me and mike proved to ourselves that items dont really make that much of a difference in the game.

 

[Ogre_Deity_Link]

There is no such thing as cheap.

However there are things that make me want to punch the opponent in the face. Repeateadly. With cow knuckles.

 

[Superninjabreadman]

@ First post: Thats skill.

being "Cheap" by most peoples defonitions is spaming attacks or dodging too much or whatever.


but for the attack spams.. you let your guard down. your enemy exposed it. you may think its cheap, but your in a fight, deal with it.

the dodgeing thing can get anoying : \

 

[trademark0013]

SSBM:

1) Friend uses Marth. ALL he does is FSmash, which knocks you off the edge and then proceeds to edgeguard with it. You make it back and he'll try to knock you off again with the same FSmash.

2) Only using almost instant kill moves, like Sleep or the Fire Uppercut.


I can beat these guys with no problem, but it is in no way fun to play them. If anything it shows a LACK of skill on their part, yet by saying only"amateur" players call things cheap you are defending people like this that rely only on a single tactic. Cheapness does exist. Yes, there are def ways around it, but that doesn't make it not cheap or fun to play against.

I mean, what do you call someone in SF2 who only uses E Honda's rapid punch move to get you in the corner? Yes, you can get around it and can use projectiles if you're quick enough, but is it fun?

are u kiding me? these situations are the things i pray for in tournament. easy win

 

[Saor Gael]

cheap is a scrubs term for efficiency. you scrubs need to read this http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm

I've read that article. It's drivel. While trying to approach a topic that cannot be supported, the person instead falls back on name-calling.

It's simply STUPID to compare Smash to real life. Chamberlain wasn't a "scrub". He was an idiot, but "scrub" is just a term "pros" came up with to puff up their fragile egos by pretending to be better than other people.

That article is actually sickening, because if you just substitute a few words, that article could be used to justify just about anything, even in real life. "The Wermacht weren't evil by trying to exterminate all the Jews and Slavs! They were just playing to win and being efficient!"

See, the thing is, Smash is a video game. Don't compare a video game to real life.

What he is actually railing about is our innate sense of "fair", which is proven to exist. It's what keeps us from robbing old ladies for extra money because they are weak an we can. Simply, I find any attack on this innate sense of fairness to be disgusting. Even if just for a video game.

Basically they hate us for putting the time and effort to learn advanced tactics and be relatively good at a game.

Another way to put this is "people despise you for being pathetic and wasting time learning how to exploit flaws in the game's programming and then pretending to be superior to people who have actual lives".

 

[Saor Gael]

Sorry for the double post.

Here's a MINORLY edited passage from that article.

"Fighting to win is the most important and most widely misunderstood concept in all of warfare. The sad irony is that those who do not already understand the implications I’m about to spell out will probably not believe them to be true at all. In fact, if I were to send this article back in time to my earlier self, even I would not believe it. Apparently, these concepts are something one must come to learn through experience, though I hope at least some of you will take my word for it.
Introducing...the Scrub

In the world stage, we have a word for countries who aren’t good at warfare: “scrub.” Now, every country begins as a scrub—it takes time to build your forces to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to fight or “learn” tactics, that one can become a world power. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the battle. The scrub has lost the war even before it starts. He’s lost the war before he’s chosen his general. He’s lost the war even before the decision of which battle is to be fought has been made. His problem? He does not fight to win.

The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is fighting to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevent him from ever truly competing. These made up rules vary from country to country, of course, but their character remains constant. In WWII, for example, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “war crimes.” So-called “war crimes” are truly the mantra of the scrub. Dropping a chemical weapon on someone often called a war crime. A chemical weapon is a special kind of device that releases toxins that kill people in hideous ways, even when the opponent is just a civilian. The entire purpose of the chemical weapon is to be able to kill an opponent who sits and doesn’t attack. As far as reality is concerned, chemical weapons are an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there, there are lots of natural toxins—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks if he’s not a combatant. The scrub thinks of not being hostile as a kind of magic shield which will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.

You’re not going to see a classic scrub drop lots of chemical weapons on the enemy. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of actions that optimize his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules called "morality". These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by shooting nuclear missiles at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you…that’s a war crime. If you fund terrorists in his country, that’s a war crime, too. If you sit and use economic sanctions to starve millions of his people, that’s a war crime. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called a war crime."

Obviously I've replaced words and changed syntax. It was shockingly easy to do.

The spirit is still the same.

I'm not taking issue with all pros. Trademark0013 at the top of the page is an example of someone who is totally fine; he enjoys playing in a competitive way. I do take issue with people who claim crap like that article, however.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

You are comparing real world warfare to video game competition? You truly are a scrub.

 

[PITforREV]

But then, some items and stages (that got banned) were cheap, unfair, or what? Because i was under the impression that their banning was due to them giving some characters an unfair, or cheap (but not unavoidable, or 100% unbeatable) advantage.

I actually know and understand why these are banned, its just that arguments like this tend to confuse me on the subject.

However: i don't play by tournament rules myself, so this question is only out of genuine curiosity

great point. I like to hear the guy that stated this's explanation

 

[CHAOSDRAGON88]

Some crazy stuff going here. But cheap tactics are usually repetitious and its really about perception.

 

[sugarpoultry]

They aren't easy either. It's not like we learned these tactics over night. We worked hard to get to where we are. Anyone who complains and doesn't try to get to that level looks lazy compared to us.

And if you can't stand playing against people who keep beating you, stop playing. But.... you will only get better if you play people who can beat you. All the more reason to improve. Put some effort in and stop complaining, or get destroyed.

 

[The Director]

Cheapness is Marth's f-smash and Fox's up smash.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

Cheapness is anything that wins.

 

[The Director]

Cheapness is anything that wins.

Allow me to elaborate on this: cheapness is anything that wins that is easily executed and has a clear advantage over everything else.

...I think I just summed up this entire thread.

 

[TheBuzzSaw]

The Director wins.

 

[CodeBlack]

Ok.

As a fighting game buff, I have a pretty good idea of what cheap is, having seen it too many times for my own liking.

Cheap: A technique that, when used, restricts the opponents freedom for full play and manueverablity, putting them at a disadvantage unless they can counter it, despite being completely between the rules. Generally are difficult to counter as well, or at least take some time to figure out. Once one figures out how to counter it, it does not become effective anymore.

An Example: The Ryu Technique: Shooting Hadokens repeatedly until the opponent comes close, in which case.

Another Example: The Dizzy Technique: Continually using a 1-Hit KO move to win matches against the unprepared, instead of actually defeating them (Note: is only cheap if this is used over and over again an extreme amount of times)

Wavedashing is technically not cheap because it isn't part of the game, it's a glich, as such, it is technically a cheat or, at best, an exploit.

Casual players dislike cheapness, myself included, because they play for fun, and a restricting environment generally impedes that, as well as producing an feeling of being cheated.

Tournement Players turn a blind eye to cheapness because they play to win, and thus have no qualms about using.

After a while, both types of players can become indifferent to cheapness, as, while restricting and somewhat unfair, they are also usually simple and generally amateur-ish, and, once a counter is discovered, become somewhat useless unless part of a bigger strategy.


However, I often hear people call others cheap for reasons that aren't cheap at all. Mostly you hear people who are both arrogant and immature at the same time (the kind of person who takes to insulting those who beat him/her), and, instead of losing with grace, proclaims that their opponent was cheap. Thus, calling out cheap has been seen as the call of a whiner, which it really isn't.

So, as such, cheapness while cheapness can be countered it still takes away from the freedom of the game, although it can still be fun finding a strategy of your own to overcome the assailing strategy.

I just wanted to add to this, mostly because i feel that people didn't get what I was saying.


Glitches and cheats aren't the same as cheap. It's just cheating.

Broken definitely isn't the same as cheap. And, no, there are no broken characters in any Smash game. Broken is like Night Terror in SC3, or Akuma in SF2. I haven't seen a character I'd call "broken" in a fighting game for a long while. Broken would be if you could play with Giga Bowser without a time limit.

An effective combo is not cheap, it's just a good chain of events. If someone calls you cheap for this, you really don't need to be playing against that person.

Cheap (or cheesy) is something simple and easily repeated that can and will decrease up your opponent's freedom in playing the game. Like using a character to repeatedly "poke" an opponent until he/she dies, or like if Kirby's throws were doable without a low % opponent breaking out, thus making it nearly impossible for the opponent to get close to him near an edge without dying instantly. Or if the Super Scope had infinite ammo and a player shot smaller shots indefinitely. Cheapness is simple, but still takes a while to figure out, and can be figured out.

Cheap may be effective, but it's also a very crummy, amateurish, and, in the hands of a "pro," a borderline dishonest way to play. In my opinion, if you can't win without having a full out true fight, and have to rely on easy-way-out, cheap strategies to win, it doesn't matter how many wins you get, you're still not good at the game, you're more like a button masher who managed to win lots of times.