>First of all, you've made it clear your judgment is completely arbitrary. You're just justifying the examples that you like and ignoring what's good about Lucario's mechanics. Here, let me show you: "Lucario's design makes sense because Lucario is a fast fighting type in the Pokémon canon, and the aura sphere already looks like a hadouken." See? Same thing.
Not at all. At no point in Pokemon or Smash Bros does landing an attack allow you to cancel the lag/turn penalty and immediately follow it up with another attack. Smash Bros is designed with an unrelenting devotion to clean design, clear communication, and form-fits-function. A key factor to all three of those design elements is concrete, organic interaction. OHC is the exact opposite of that, it's abstract, and unclean design. The game plays on space and gravity dynamics rather than arbitrary abstract counters. There's nothing good about it; it's a gimmick mechanic that undermines concrete design and limits gameplay potential.
>You simply do not understand the concept of good balance, then. All you're suggesting is that if a character needs balance checks, then it's not well-designed. That is complete rubbish and against the design philosophy of Project M.
Hold on, let me quote the line that was responding to:
>It's not about balancing the mechanic, it's that the mechanic works against the natural forms of the game. In order to balance Lucario's OHC, you need to cripple his concrete design elements. Sacrificing concrete elements for abstract elements is rarely, if ever, good design.
Here, let me do it again:
>It's not about balancing the mechanic, it's that the mechanic works against the natural forms of the game. In order to balance Lucario's OHC, you need to cripple his concrete design elements. Sacrificing concrete elements for abstract elements is rarely, if ever, good design.
OHC is a poor mechanic because it introduces abstraction by sacrificing the concrete. It has, as I've said before, nothing to do with balance. Do you know what operates as a great check and balancing factor? ENDLAG. Endlag for attacks, for landing aerials, for everything. Canceling endlag eliminates the "pull" aspect of gameplay, which is the "push/pull" between game elements. Interplay is core of gameplay, and limiting push/pull chains of counters limits gameplay.
> If you can't understand something as simple as that, maybe PM is too deep for you.
Ironic, considering that OHC actually robs the system of depth by limiting interplay potential.
>There's no "sacrificing" elements involved.
Really? So what happens to the endlag of attacks canceled on-hit?
>Lucario is a prime example of an unorthodox character. Snake is an unorthodox character because he's from a game series that takes place in a real world, yet he's amongst bright and colorful or magical Nintendo characters... but is he unorthodox in the world of 3D shooters? Of course not. It's all about perspective.
Fiction and function are not the same. Snake's function is entirely true to the natural forms of Smash Bros, as well as the Metal Gear fiction. PM Lucario is neither true to Pokemon fiction, nor the natural forms of Smash Bros.
>No. If you hold the control stick in the same direction as the knockback, there will be no change in trajectory. Also, you've completely ignored my point that influencing to launch towards the corners is not intuitive to anyone except people who know from geometry that the corners give the most living space.
Hold on, I've more quoting to do.
" Holding the stick away from an opponent is going to alter the trajectory of any upward attack that would keep you in combo range"
"Most players are unlikely to understand the specifics of survival DI, but that doesn't mean that DI as a whole isn't an intuitive mechanic."
Did you catch it that time, or do I have to quote it again.
>It's a good thing people as narrow-minded as you aren't designing characters for Smash Bros.
It's a good thing people with as poor design sensibilities as yourself aren't designing characters for Smash Bros. There's a difference between being close-minded and having some consideration to design and function, very much like there is a difference between being open-minded and forgoing any sort of consideration for how the elements function within the system.