What is the importance of combos in SSB?

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

I was very unsure of where to post this question, but I was hoping I'd get my answer here.

My question: What is the overall importance and significance of having a combo system in Super Smash Bros? I already realize that a variety of combos are feasible in Melee but not so much in Brawl. I also realize that Melee, unlike the more traditional fighting games, doesn't require one to remember a certain combo and allows for a sense of creativity in combos. I'm asking WHY is being able to string attacks together so important for this series (if it is at all), and what exactly is the outcome if that combo system is somewhat limited or non-existent entirely.

I just want a better understanding for myself about this component of Smash.

 

[Synth177]

Comboing is fun.

 

[victra♥]

Comboing gives a reward for winning interactions in the neutral game and getting the opportunities to punish, and it's fun.

Smash 64 gives the biggest reward of all the games since the combos in that game are ridiculous. One touch = Stock

Brawl and Smash4 have poorer reward systems, so the games have more of an emphasis on defensive play and positioning. Since the neutral game is constantly resetting and the punishes are just pokes here and there after winning small interactions in the neutral, it's a bit slower paced and it's as exciting for some players.

Melee is a bit of the middle ground between these two contrasting installments.

 

[Tagxy]

Kindly disagree that a more difficult punish system puts an emphasis on defensive play. In regards to Brawl, its defense largely lied in the games neutral options (projectiles and large swords). ICs vs X character in Brawl provided some of the strongest punishes on both sides (0-death chaingrab vs dead nana) and those were the campiest MUs in brawl. Additionally as you noted smash 64 has more one touch stocks, and 64 is more defensive then Brawl as well. Also not to fault anyone in particular since its a common misconception, but Brawl has a punishment game that centers on risk management, not constant resets to neutral. Poker is the best comparison I can think of when thinking of an analogy to Brawls punish game. Its hard to say what smash 4's punish game is like yet except that its less risk management than brawl and more risk management than melee.

 

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

So without comboing, the game can transform

 

[Jackson]

The combos drew me in to Melee, and they're keeping me here. The game is so fun and exciting.

 

[Haaaaadoken]

Combos make the game interesting and more of a intriguing to watch. They make the game faster and in my opinion much more enjoyable to play. They also are very fun to preform :3

 

[Massive]

Stringing together attacks is exciting in melee because there are no set combos.

There are bread and butter tactics and follow ups in melee, but nothing is guaranteed. It becomes a battle of prediction and spacing, and that is very interesting to watch.

Attacks in melee effect just enough stun that there are combo options off of them, and the limiting nature of airdodges and DI mean that follow ups can occur. In brawl (and smash 4) follow ups become difficult or impossible because hitstun is so low and air dodges can be done multiple times without crippling the player.

Without enough hitstun (around the amount of Melee and PM), the game's meta will eventually centralize on camping with projectiles, safe pokes, and match timeouts. Too much hitstun and 0-death combos become centralized and the game centralizes around throwing out safe combo starters and playing defensively until you get one.

 

[Kadano]

My question: What is the overall importance and significance of having a combo system in Super Smash Bros?

They wreck your opponent.

 

[EddyBearr]

http://www.gfycat.com/TightBarrenGnu

That gif alone explains everything about why combos are so important in Smash. The high level of competitive play. The mix-ups, follow-ups, stage awareness, DI mix-ups & awareness, DI traps, frame traps, the reads... So much skill/thought/effort all because of the existence of combos. Brawl and SSB4 have nothing like this.

 

[Tagxy]

In brawl (and smash 4) follow ups become difficult or impossible because hitstun is so low and air dodges can be done multiple times without crippling the player.

Without enough hitstun (around the amount of Melee and PM), the game's meta will eventually centralize on camping with projectiles, safe pokes, and match timeouts. Too much hitstun and 0-death combos become centralized and the game centralizes around throwing out safe combo starters and playing defensively until you get one.

Brawl and SSB4 have nothing like this.

I get youre excited about melee, but stick to what you know.

Thread has been otherwise good.

 

[Mr. KoopaTurtle]

Kindly disagree that a more difficult punish system puts an emphasis on defensive play. In regards to Brawl, its defense largely lied in the games neutral options (projectiles and large swords). ICs vs X character in Brawl provided some of the strongest punishes on both sides (0-death chaingrab vs dead nana) and those were the campiest MUs in brawl. Additionally as you noted smash 64 has more one touch stocks, and 64 is more defensive then Brawl as well. Also not to fault anyone in particular since its a common misconception, but Brawl has a punishment game that centers on risk management, not constant resets to neutral. Poker is the best comparison I can think of when thinking of an analogy to Brawls punish game. Its hard to say what smash 4's punish game is like yet except that its less risk management than brawl and more risk management than melee.

Stringing together attacks is exciting in melee because there are no set combos.

There are bread and butter tactics and follow ups in melee, but nothing is guaranteed. It becomes a battle of prediction and spacing, and that is very interesting to watch.

Attacks in melee effect just enough stun that there are combo options off of them, and the limiting nature of airdodges and DI mean that follow ups can occur. In brawl (and smash 4) follow ups become difficult or impossible because hitstun is so low and air dodges can be done multiple times without crippling the player.

Without enough hitstun (around the amount of Melee and PM), the game's meta will eventually centralize on camping with projectiles, safe pokes, and match timeouts. Too much hitstun and 0-death combos become centralized and the game centralizes around throwing out safe combo starters and playing defensively until you get one.

These were the kind of answers I was searching for. Thank you.

 

[EddyBearr]

I get youre excited about melee, but stick to what you know.

Thread has been otherwise good.

I both enjoy Brawl and will likely enjoy SSB4, including competitively.

With that said, head-to-head interactions that.. quick/heated, just aren't present in the other games. Sorry.

 

[Tagxy]

I both enjoy Brawl and will likely enjoy SSB4, including competitively.

With that said, head-to-head interactions that.. quick/heated, just aren't present in the other games. Sorry.

That's not what you said, and playing and enjoying Brawl isn't the same as understanding it.

Melee strings mostly lean reaction based, brawl strings mostly lean read based. The best example I can use to describe Brawl's punishment game in melee terms is fox being hit offstage. Fox has options offstage, but theyre limited and for the most part his concern is making it back to the stage safely. Most characters dont have a 100% guarantee on killing fox (yes I know theres exceptions), but are in a strong position to land a successful hit that will gimp him. Some of foxes options are better than others given his situation and theres a form of risk management concerning best options/second best options/etc. that Im sure everyone's heard before. Brawls punishment game revolves a lot more around these points, where punishment isn't 100% guaranteed but your ability to string hits based on risk assessments and reading your opponent are what differentiate one player from a better player. This is different then a neutral game because in a neutral game both players have all their options and one player isnt in an inherently better position then the other, and since punishment isnt guaranteed regardless of whether you succeed or not you always want to try since the probability of success is strongly in your favor, improving on that probability is an important skill for the game. This skill exists in melee also as exemplified in the fox example or anytime you wish to continue a string as your opponent is about to exit hitstun, but is less common (the reverse is true for guaranteed punishes in Brawl).

One way I thought to compare games is through a term I called the Player Interaction Ratio (PIR) as players are in their punishment game. The ratio is the amount of options the defending player has over the player pursuing punishment. Theres no strict numbers but we can apply but we still can do this conceptually as a number between 0 and 1.

64: Extremely low PIR (almost 0)
Common Options: SDI only

Melee: Low-moderate PIR
Common Options: DI + SDI

Brawl: Fairly high PIR
Common Options: DI + SDI + Airdodging, occasionally jumping and some attacks

Smash 4: Moderate PIR
Common Options: DI + SDI, sometimes airdodging

At some point along the spectrum punishment moves from being able to punish on reaction to needing a reads, and the further along that moves the more difficult the reads become. If the PRI moves beyond 1 the game is broken.

 

[EddyBearr]

That's not what you said, and playing and enjoying Brawl isn't the same as understanding it.

Melee strings mostly lean reaction based, brawl strings mostly lean read based. The best example I can use to describe Brawl's punishment game in melee terms is fox being hit offstage. Fox has options offstage, but theyre limited and for the most part his concern is making it back to the stage safely. Most characters dont have a 100% guarantee on killing fox (yes I know theres exceptions), but are in a strong position to land a successful hit that will gimp him. Some of foxes options are better than others given his situation and theres a form of risk management concerning best options/second best options/etc. that Im sure everyone's heard before. Brawls punishment game revolves a lot more around these points, where punishment isn't 100% guaranteed but your ability to string hits based on risk assessments and reading your opponent are what differentiate one player from a better player. This is different then a neutral game because in a neutral game both players have all their options and one player isnt in an inherently better position then the other, and since punishment isnt guaranteed regardless of whether you succeed or not you always want to try since the probability of success is strongly in your favor, improving on that probability is an important skill for the game. This skill exists in melee also as exemplified in the fox example or anytime you wish to continue a string as your opponent is about to exit hitstun, but is less common (the reverse is true for guaranteed punishes in Brawl).

One way I thought to compare games is through a term I called the Player Interaction Ratio (PIR) as players are in their punishment game. The ratio is the amount of options the defending player has over the player pursuing punishment. Theres no strict numbers but we can apply but we still can do this conceptually as a number between 0 and 1.

64: Extremely low PIR (almost 0)
Common Options: SDI only

Melee: Low-moderate PIR
Common Options: DI + SDI

Brawl: Fairly high PIR
Common Options: DI + SDI + Airdodging, occasionally jumping and some attacks

Smash 4: Moderate PIR
Common Options: DI + SDI, sometimes airdodging

At some point along the spectrum punishment moves from being able to punish on reaction to needing a reads, and the further along that moves the more difficult the reads become. If the PRI moves beyond 1 the game is broken.

1. My first comment was relatively vague, and you selectively interpreted it, so I chose to elaborate in response.
2. I do understand brawl relatively will, better than most melee players and than some Brawl players (call it moderate). The only thing that kept me from playing Brawl competitively was regional isolation. The majority of your post was preaching to the choir.
3. Your PIR completely ignores the significance of combo and mix-up DI in a combo-oriented game. Brawl doesn't have to worry about this beyond frame-traps, instead being able to focus on survival DI and positioning DI. Likewise, more options doesn't inherently mean more competitive depth if the implications of those options don't go very deep.

 

[Elyssa Xey Hexen]

I was very unsure of where to post this question, but I was hoping I'd get my answer here.

My question: What is the overall importance and significance of having a combo system in Super Smash Bros? I already realize that a variety of combos are feasible in Melee but not so much in Brawl. I also realize that Melee, unlike the more traditional fighting games, doesn't require one to remember a certain combo and allows for a sense of creativity in combos. I'm asking WHY is being able to string attacks together so important for this series (if it is at all), and what exactly is the outcome if that combo system is somewhat limited or non-existent entirely.

I just want a better understanding for myself about this component of Smash.

Basically, what is it that ends up being appealing to people playing a fighting game? My first thought is that conflict is the biggest thing. Suppose two people were put on a stage without anyway to interact with each other? The game gets boring really quick. People lose interest and a game no longer exists.

There needs to be something to keep both parties engaged with each other and therefore you allow them to attack each other. With it being two human players the decision making is complex and often one bout is different than another. Thus, you have enough interest to keep people playing. Now, suppose we vary the levels of engagement. One with a proficient combo system and one without one. In the one without, I say that people engage once, then stop. As in they disengage losing any advantage and go right back to neutral situation. Repeat as often as you wish. This is probably slightly more interesting than two people not able to interact as I mentioned in an earlier example.

Both sides tend to engage less with no combo system. However, with a combo system one can end up going to the other side of the spectrum. One person ends up playing so much that the other person might as well not even be playing. In which case the game turns into a single person event.

With both of these ideas of mind I believe a combo system is necessary to minimize time where nothing is happening. A combo will promote at least one side participating. However, the biggest loss I say is a system in which there are no good defensive mechanics. As in a person gets no options to make.

Something should exist to be a good balance between them both.

 

[Tagxy]

1. My first comment was relatively vague, and you selectively interpreted it, so I chose to elaborate in response.
2. I do understand brawl relatively will, better than most melee players and than some Brawl players (call it moderate). The only thing that kept me from playing Brawl competitively was regional isolation. The majority of your post was preaching to the choir.
3. Your PIR completely ignores the significance of combo and mix-up DI in a combo-oriented game. Brawl doesn't have to worry about this beyond frame-traps, instead being able to focus on survival DI and positioning DI. Likewise, more options doesn't inherently mean more competitive depth if the implications of those options don't go very deep.

It wasnt vague but the point is irrelevant. Combo DI is relevant in Brawl because it will help you to actually escape being combo'd. Even though I do think Brawl's punishment game is deeper that wasnt the point of the post, theyre both fairly deep for different reasons.

In the one without [a combo system], I say that people engage once, then stop. As in they disengage losing any advantage and go right back to neutral situation.

Unless you meant punishment game instead of combo system this is false

 

[Massive]

I get youre excited about melee, but stick to what you know.

There is no need to condescend to anybody here, chill out.

Combos by definition rely on the opponent not having the ability to counter or prevent the subsequent attacks directly, this mechanic is usually enforced by hitstun. Combo breaks/escapes in smash rely on the DI mechanic (as well as some weird shield frame stuff characters like yoshi can do), but they do not alter the importance of hitstun in combos.

In brawl/smash 4 hitstun's effects are so reduced that while you can hit an opponent repeatedly or connect a follow up, it is usually because the opponent chose wrong or was unable to react, not because they were in hitstun. As a result they do not have many real combos at all, especially in competitive play.