Why are Smash players so concerned with "advanced techniques?"

[Nobie]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but it's something that's been on my mind for a long time, probably as early as the release of Brawl years ago. Over and over again I've seen people tout advanced techniques as the indicator for a robust competitive environment.

While I can understand how specific difficult skills can enhance the gameplay experience, by say, giving a weaker character a power boost, being a satisfying goal to train for, or indeed opening up new avenues of gameplay, there seems to be this assumption that the more advanced techniques a game has, the greater chance it has of being competitive, when what defines the degree to which a game is competitive can include so many factors.

This isn't a knock at advanced techniques, I'm just confused as to why "specific techniques" are so sought after, to the extent that it's a more prominent point of discussion than just straight-up technical skill. It's like, rather than talking about learning the ins and outs of Peach's floating mechanics to absolute perfection, people prefer to look for a technique that would almost change her character.

If anyone has an explanation, I'm all ears.

 

[Thinkaman]

Do you want the cold, hard, truth?

Because the idea of something you can use to prove you are better at a video game just by knowing it, while retaining all the surface trappings of abstract concepts like "skill" and "depth", appeals to a lot of people.

 

[Zzuxon]

ATs just increase options, which lead to more deep play.
That's about it.
Only a vocal miority would think that they are more important than normal execution.

 

[dragontamer]

Because this is the competitive forums, and we play to win. If there's a "secret technique" that gives us a slight advantage on the opponent, we'll probably want to take advantage of it. Having the ability to do something that your opponent cannot do is the basis of technical skill advantages. Gaining that competitive edge through practice and training is a core component of being a competitive player.

As for how many advanced techniques there are... and whether or not its useful to a competitive environment... I don't believe Smash in general has any frame-perfect techniques (even perfect-pivot doesn't seem to be frame-perfect). While execution barrier is a major thing in your typical hyper-fighters (Guilty Gear, BlazBlue, Marvel). Even standard fighters like Street Fighter have their glorious "one-frame links" which requires a ton of practice to get right.

Ultimately, Smash4 is Smash4. There's the advanced techniques you can learn if you want to (WaveBouncing, Perfect Pivot, B-reversals, Stutter-Step FSmash, Jumpless Luigi Cyclone, etc. etc.). There's probably less advanced techniques in this game than other fighters, but Smash4 is more complicated than say... Divekick.

Do you want the cold, hard, truth?

Because the idea of something you can use to prove you are better at a video game just by knowing it, while retaining all the surface trappings of abstract concepts like "skill" and "depth", appeals to a lot of people.

Lol, Ouch.

On this subject, I do suggest people play super-simple games like Divekick to see how simple fighting games can be at their core. Erm.. and yeah, I do realize Divekick has Kara-cancels and other advanced techniques, but technical mastery can only be so hard in a 2-button fighter (with an ample and easy to use buffering system).

With that said, I do think that execution barriers add a level of complexity that can be enjoyable, as long as the execution barrier is within reason and as long as all players involved have studied the advanced techniques and are familiar with them.

Otherwise, we'd all be satisfied by simply playing Divekick all day.

 

[Raijinken]

Because some (but not all) of them add depth at the cost of accessibility. Glaring at you, L-Cancel.

 

[Octagon]

Advanced techniques are the first step to achieving greatness. Just learning the techniques will take you a long way

 

[Nobie]

I wasn't asking why people learn them (so they can be better at the game and win more), but rather why so much discussion as to the competitive future of Smash 4 revolves around the potential discovery of ATs. Some people in the thread brought up Divekick, which is basically a distillation of the fighting game as a genre, and I find it interesting that a game like that would be born from a desire to simplify, to get at a core essence of fighting games, whereas Smash players seem dedicated to building up as much "stuff" as possible.

 

[Octagon]

I wasn't asking why people learn them (so they can be better at the game and win more), but rather why so much discussion as to the competitive future of Smash 4 revolves around the potential discovery of ATs. Some people in the thread brought up Divekick, which is basically a distillation of the fighting game as a genre, and I find it interesting that a game like that would be born from a desire to simplify, to get at a core essence of fighting games, whereas Smash players seem dedicated to building up as much "stuff" as possible.

I feel the Smash community is special in that we want to keep growing and growing the depth of the game. There is so much discussion cause we are all crazy about Smash and want to find the most advanced techniques that will help us win our battles. At the end of the day it all comes down to how badly you want to win so some fans like the smashboards members will study the game to a crazy extent to figure out the best possible way to win

 

[dragontamer]

I wasn't asking why people learn them (so they can be better at the game and win more), but rather why so much discussion as to the competitive future of Smash 4 revolves around the potential discovery of ATs

You could try talking to those people next time you meet them ??

Personally speaking, I'm excited about advanced tech, again as long as it isn't ridiculous to pull off (ie: Wavebouncing, OOS options with tap-jump off). Ridiculous stuff like Luigi jumpless cyclone makes me cringe.

Clearly, APex has demonstrated that Melee players will continue to want to play Melee, so the future of Smash4 is going to be community building, at least initially. We really shouldn't have people chanting for Melee while the winner of a Smash4 major tournament is being crowned.

 

[Octagon]

We really shouldn't have people chanting for Melee while the winner of a Smash4 major tournament is being crowned.

That was just stupid. If people want to play Melee then do it, this is Smash 4! A totally different beast

 

[DunnoBro]

I find it weird people go "Muh ATs" when they try to explain brawl is better competitively, but ignore MK doesn't really give a damn about ATs.

 

[thehard]

I find it weird people go "Muh ATs" when they try to explain brawl is better competitively, but ignore MK doesn't really give a damn about ATs.

Lol Reddit lol documentary kids

But seriously, you can put "advanced techs = competitive" in the same bin as "RNG is anti-competitive and luck based elements are always bad for games" and "faster = more competitive"

 

[Kofu]

I find it weird people go "Muh ATs" when they try to explain brawl is better competitively, but ignore MK doesn't really give a damn about ATs.

I dunno man, Infinite Dimentional Cape was a pretty legit AT.

 

[SleuthMechanism]

Lol Reddit lol documentary kids

But seriously, you can put "advanced techs = competitive" in the same bin as "RNG is anti-competitive and luck based elements are always bad for games" and "faster = more competitive"

give me a convincing defense for rng in a competitive environement because i am puzzled by how rng is anything but anti-competitive in nature.

 

[thehard]

give me a convincing defense for rng in a competitive environement because i am puzzled by how rng is anything but anti-competitive in nature.

It depends how it's implemented in a game but working with and around RNG is a skill in itself that can often make games more interesting. Here's a good article on it: http://hearthstone.gamepedia.com/RNG

 

[xquqx]

It depends how it's implemented in a game but working with and around RNG is a skill in itself that can often make games more interesting.

That's why everyone applauded Brawl for its tripping mechanic, right?

 

[thehard]

That's why everyone applauded Brawl for its tripping mechanic, right?

"It depends how it's implemented in a game"

Bad example... we do applaud Misfires and 9s though, so think of it that way.

 

[Smog Frog]

You could try talking to those people next time you meet them ??

Personally speaking, I'm excited about advanced tech, again as long as it isn't ridiculous to pull off (ie: Wavebouncing, OOS options with tap-jump off). Ridiculous stuff like Luigi jumpless cyclone makes me cringe.

Clearly, APex has demonstrated that Melee players will continue to want to play Melee, so the future of Smash4 is going to be community building, at least initially. We really shouldn't have people chanting for Melee while the winner of a Smash4 major tournament is being crowned.

just an fyi, to do an oos option with tap jump off, just press jump+your desired option at the same time. i cant even do b reverses consistently, but i can do this 100% of the time

 

[dragontamer]

just an fyi, to do an oos option with tap jump off, just press jump+your desired option at the same time. i cant even do b reverses consistently, but i can do this 100% of the time

I agree that OOS options are pretty easy to do (even with tap-jump off).

But I still consider them advanced tech, because I find that most non-competitive players don't know a thing about them. Non-competitive players know a lot about shield, rolls, spot-dodges and most of the attack options, but OOS is kind of something you have to show / demonstrate before someone gets it, especially if they're a tap-jump off kinda guy.

I'm still more or less excited about applications of Stutter-step FSmash, Fox-trotting, Fox-trot dash-dances and the like. Even perfect-pivots are kinda exciting to me, and I welcome their applications (if I can see more high-level applications of perfect pivots anyway... right now its kinda not reallly around right now)

But something like Luigi's jumpless cyclone just doesn't strike me as a very fun advanced tech to practice.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

For people complaining about, it might be for a few reasons.

1) They can't read people or play outside of a pattern so they rely on techs to carry them.
2) They want to find something deeper over just learning what the game offers, which Smash 4 does on a lot of levels people still haven't gotten too deep into outside of aMSa who has tried to implement a few of them.
3) They like technical play to be a part of fighting games even more than it is.

 

[Kodachi]

Because its like having an extra ace up your sleeve.

 

[Vincent21]

"It depends how it's implemented in a game"

Bad example... we do applaud Misfires and 9s though, so think of it that way.

I don't. I think one of the greatest tragedies you can see in a competitive staged match is something like G&W getting a d-throw 9 from 0% and invalidating a stock lead/round that a person worked so hard for. Its like a personal strike against the competitor from RNGesus that just saps all of the value and tension out of the match in a cold, disgusting instant.

Anyway,

Do you want the cold, hard, truth?

Because the idea of something you can use to prove you are better at a video game just by knowing it, while retaining all the surface trappings of abstract concepts like "skill" and "depth", appeals to a lot of people.

Hey, we have a winner!

Using AT in a game that has it is fine, but asserting its value to games in general is kind of silly. The truth is most ATs are false depth. If you made the same mechanic more accessible or automatic in those cases the game would have the same strategical depth, but just be easier on your hands. Depth from mechanics that solely play on your (in)ability to press awkward, difficult strings of buttons rapidly without screwing up stop being about the knowledge and your ability to outsmart/outplay an opponent and delve into the realm of being a barrier of entry.

 

[Quarium]

Using AT in a game that has it is fine, but asserting its value to games in general is kind of silly. The truth is most ATs are false depth. If you made the same mechanic more accessible or automatic in those cases the game would have the same strategical depth, but just be easier on your hands. Depth from mechanics that solely play on your (in)ability to press awkward, difficult strings of buttons rapidly without screwing up stop being about the knowledge and your ability to outsmart/outplay an opponent and delve into the realm of being a barrier of entry.

This is everything I ever wanted to say, expressed in a soundly and smart manner. I love you and I will quote this a lot.

 

[Cazdon]

To me, AT are only good, if they are fun. Simple as that. I play for fun, and what ever makes me have the most fun, be it winning or pulling off a difficult set of inputs or even just surprising other players, is what I do.

If I can have fun in Sliding around with PP, I will try. But I personally don't find PP fun to use, it's too picky to be used reliably and the effects are minimal.

Now L-cancel Falco D-air in D-air again, THAT is something I'd say would be fun to learn.

In the end I care about fun. Winning is fun, but mostly on my own completely subjective terms. I don't have any less respect for those that do what they can to win, because I know how fun that can be for them. ATs help just a little bit to your winning, then I can understand the hype around them.

I don't feel like I summed up my points very well here, but I hope I did. In the end, it's about fun and what that means to you as a player.

PLZDON'TKILLMECOMPETATIVETHREAD

 

[Nobie]

give me a convincing defense for rng in a competitive environement because i am puzzled by how rng is anything but anti-competitive in nature.

Randomness is only really an issue in competitive games if there's no way to cope with it or prepare for it before the fact, and plenty of games incorporate RNG as part of their competitive environments.

In Texas Hold 'em, each person gets two cards to start with, and three to five universal cards shared by all. Some information is therefore obvious to everyone, with some of it is hidden. By having this hidden information, and the ability to raise the stakes or just fold, strategies develop that allow players to both use the randomness of the draw and the potential for "unfair" luck to their advantage. Many famous plays revolve around someone going all-in and putting all of their money on one hand in order to project an aura of confidence, and at the same time it's often the best decision to lose less by folding and just cutting your losses.

Japanese mahjong is a 4-player game where you get a starting hand, and then every turn draw one tile and discard one tile, gradually building your hand to completion and a win. If an opponent discards your last tile, then you win and take points directly from them. There are always cases where some players have superior hands from the beginning and can win more quickly, and times where you get screwed over, but the game is similar to Texas Hold 'em in that you can always just fold. The difference is that folding cannot be done in one move, but rather is often a long process where you reads what tiles are safe based on the opponents' discards. Moreover, if you're in a situation where your hand is almost complete but it just won't come together for whatever reason, you're left with a choice of abandoning your attack and giving up on the chance to take the lead, or taking a risk and continuing with your hand, knowing that someone might be lying in wait ready to pounce. That tension is what creates a lot of the competitive depth of mahjong.

Deck-building TCGs such as Magic, Hearthstone, Yugioh, and Pokemon all involve some randomness because you have to shuffle your hand at the beginning and draw one or two cards per turn, in order. However, top players prepare for this aspect of the game by building their decks as efficiently as possible, so that there's less of a chance of having a useless hand while playing. Other times they'll put in cards that specifically allow them to draw more cards. Obviously bad draws still happen sometimes, but then you learn how to cope with being at a disadvantage.

Essentially, what randomness or luck can add to a competitive environment is that they test your ability to improvise, to prepare, to mitigate damage, and to seize opportunity. While you can do this in a non-random environment, the very fact that a situation might happen beyond the players' control is in itself a skill that can be tested. Do you deal well with "unfairness," or do you spite the game and call it garbage? How easily can you keep your cool in a situation where you feel that the game has screwed you over? As long as there are enough opportunities to play through it, this can allow the better players, the superior competitors, to succeed more often.

 

[Cazdon]

Essentially, what randomness or luck can add to a competitive environment is that they test your ability to improvise, to prepare, to mitigate damage, and to seize opportunity. While you can do this in a non-random environment, the very fact that a situation might happen beyond the players' control is in itself a skill that can be tested. Do you deal well with "unfairness," or do you spite the game and call it garbage? How easily can you keep your cool in a situation where you feel that the game has screwed you over? As long as there are enough opportunities to play through it, this can allow the better players, the superior competitors, to succeed more often.

And more hype. This is essentially why I love G&W's 9s and Peach's Turnips. You worded this wonderfully, and the whole making the best out of a bad situation, is a perfect example as to why I loveRNGesus. And I agree, RNG frustrates me, but I find more enjoyment beating the odds if things go bad in my favor, than just winning outright by being better.

 

[Terotrous]

What the TC is talking about isn't why people use ATs, but why people are so desperate to label anything as an AT. Even here, any time someone discovers something ridiculously situational that has almost no practical use, they're like "GROUNDBREAKING NEW AT DISCOVERED! SMASH4 FINALLY SAVED!" It does get pretty obnoxious after a while.

I'm pretty sure this stems from lingering insecurity about the notion that Smash is a "casual" fighting game. People desperately want to find ATs so they can claim that Smash has those same execution barriers that make games like SF4 so "hardcore".

Of course, this is completely asinine. Even with no ATs, there's still a ton of depth to Smash. Knowing how to battle for stage position and space your attacks to win the neutral game is complex enough that even the pros will always have room to get better. Smash may have accessible controls, but all of the core concepts of what make a fighting game are present here, and I would argue some of them are actually even more emphasized than in more execution-heavy fighters.

 

[J.P]

Lol Reddit lol documentary kids

Documentary kid? Man, @ DunnoBro joined in 2005 lmao! I think you are the one acting like a kid here.

 

[thehard]

Documentary kid? Man, @ DunnoBro joined in 2005 lmao! I think you are the one acting like a kid here.

Oh sorry, you misinterpreted me. I was laughing about who I imagine DunnoBro was REFERRING to i.e. people who don't know anything about competitive Smash history or have even played past Smash games competitively.

 

[Vincent21]

And more hype. This is essentially why I love G&W's 9s and Peach's Turnips. You worded this wonderfully, and the whole making the best out of a bad situation, is a perfect example as to why I loveRNGesus. And I agree, RNG frustrates me, but I find more enjoyment beating the odds if things go bad in my favor, than just winning outright by being better.

Making the best out of a bad situation (what's he's talking about), and getting a good situation for free (those two things you mentioned) are two different things.

The difference? Planning. Whether you get a good or bad hand in YuGiOh/Magic/Poker, you earn any payoff from it by planning around what you were given. You never plan around a 9 or Stitch, they just fall in your lap.

 

[Big-Cat]

For people complaining about, it might be for a few reasons.

1) They can't read people or play outside of a pattern so they rely on techs to carry them.
2) They want to find something deeper over just learning what the game offers, which Smash 4 does on a lot of levels people still haven't gotten too deep into outside of aMSa who has tried to implement a few of them.
3) They like technical play to be a part of fighting games even more than it is.

4) They're trying way too hard to validate themselves to the FGC.

 

[PCHU]

I use it to accentuate my style of play.
Some characters rely on it more because of the vast options tech opens up (Fox, CF), but others like Jigglypuff and Ganon hardly need anything to function well enough to compete.

A game can be great without tech, of course, but it's still nice to have a greater arsenal of tools to work with when fighting someone.
Tech can carry you for a short while, but all it takes is someone with mastery over the basics to remind you that you need to think about where, when, and how you use it.
This being said, it isn't completely necessary to learn these techniques, especially if your character doesn't have much use for them, but players who are already good at the basics and understand the applications of these techniques will generally be ahead of everyone else; some call it unfair, but I don't see why people get mad at someone who invests time in a game being better than someone who hasn't/pointlessly limits themselves by not using readily accessible tools that will help them.

 

[Omega_Knight]

Some people like to have definitive goals to practice for as well. Thinking that practicing one particular thing will make you better is easier and more rewarding than just "keep playing", even though it doesn't automatically make you better.

 

[Vincent21]

I use it to accentuate my style of play.
Some characters rely on it more because of the vast options tech opens up (Fox, CF), but others like Jigglypuff and Ganon hardly need anything to function well enough to compete.

A game can be great without tech, of course, but it's still nice to have a greater arsenal of tools to work with when fighting someone.
Tech can carry you for a short while, but all it takes is someone with mastery over the basics to remind you that you need to think about where, when, and how you use it.
This being said, it isn't completely necessary to learn these techniques, especially if your character doesn't have much use for them, but players who are already good at the basics and understand the applications of these techniques will generally be ahead of everyone else; some call it unfair, but I don't see why people get mad at someone who invests time in a game being better than someone who hasn't/pointlessly limits themselves by not using readily accessible tools that will help them.

All true. However it's important to remember it's not the tech itself accentuating your play, it is the decision tree each new tech provides. Games shouldn't be looking to build in tech, they should be looking to build in meaningful player interactions. And as Divekick examples, that doesn't require complicated inputs of any nature.

 

[FimPhym]

Loving some of the posts here. Just wanted to add that another reason people love the idea of "ATs" is because in melee they functioned as a gatekeeper. The power of the stuff in melee has a legacy that makes people go wild over subtle positioning tools like perfect pivoting, even though it's anemic in comparison.

Even if you have fantastic fundamentals, you are crippled without l cancelling and let alone shuffled aerials. Once you can perform the core techniques in melee you can effortlessly stomp on those who don't. I used this fact to wrack up a lovely pot of money for charity in a skewed odds money match fundraiser (£1 entry £20 prize! Such good odds!).

This gives you a very visible improvement over players who don't know the secret inputs, but not over any tournament players. They can all execute the important stuff. It's easy to see that you can shuffle though, and hard to see your spacing or timing or reads got incrementally sharper. People hoping the likes of perfect pivoting will give the the crushing advantage that relentless safe offense did in melee are going to be sorely disappointed.

The rest of is just the fallacy that having more options = deeper game. That's not necessarily true of course, and while the movement techniques in melee opened up wonderful worlds of gameplay, you're just likely to find some weird bug that skews your risk/reward such that you want to do one thing only (hey link jab infinite!).

Oh and as a last thought, some people like hard to execute stuff because it feels satisfying to learn. Anyone that plays a musical instrument probably knows what I'm talking about. It's not always good for the game or the players, but it can be pretty fun to do dexterity stuff.

 

[Orion*]

i think most of the comments from competitive players are actually kind of funny. while knowing and understanding all of your options is very good, having NEAR PERFECT basics (spacing, conditioning, punishes, recovery, ect) are much more important than any AT you could get. Sometimes ATs just define a meta (look at melee for example), and in that case knowing how to combo or move as fluently as your opponent is a pre-requisite for even attempting to play the game.

But there are literally a million foxes that can do all of these ridiculous multishine on shields ect. They don't place many times because they suck at core fundamentals of the game, and instead focused and got tunnel visioned on ATs.

There are people like Anti who in brawl had a very low technical barrier in comparison to the other top players (he literally didnt even upB out of shield) but could still place at national events. But his punish game, reactions and spacing were so amazing that it just made up for it.

That said, Nintendo doesn't really care about how we play or feel about smash. So many times we have gotten the options that we would look for in other more traditional fighters from abusing specific game mechanics in smash. Learning and practicing this stuff will never hurt you, and as a new player it will definitely put you ahead of the curve. But eventually all of these options just plateau and the top players who have the strongest fundamentals will remain. Some will have more tech skill than others, and that is a strength (look at top ice climber mains in brawl for example). But no one skill alone will win you a national

 

[Solo Popo]

OP

There is nothing to discuss in terms of basic mechanics. Just practice and learn. As for advanced techniques, if you never played Melee, you might not understand the extreme emphasis on advanced techniques in this community. In Melee, you simply did not stand a chance if you were not familiar with the bread and butter ATs. In brawl, people were desperate to find ATs that were relevant, but sadly the game had very few significant ones to speak of, at least when compared to Melee. People obsess over ATs because they want to find ATs. Whether or not they are relevant is another issue entirely. One glance at the list of Brawls "ATs" and you will start to get a feel for the level of desperation in finding them. ATs would have given Brawl the competitive edge it needed. It would have helped players to execute moves faster, maybe even make combos possible, which is something the developers deliberately tried to hinder. But alas, Brawl was terrible for that very reason. I have high hopes for this new one. Nintendo is on board with the competitive community now.

I wouldn't put too much stock in ATs this time around. Nintendo will patch out anything "game breaking." Unless it turns out that the community actually really likes the AT. We will have to fight for our ATs, so don't be in such a hurry to unveil them.

 

[LyonDRC]

I think people want to be and feel rewarded for putting their time into the game. Plus, it makes the game more interesting.

 

[PCHU]

There is nothing to discuss in terms of basic mechanics. Just practice and learn. As for advanced techniques, if you never played Melee, you might not understand the extreme emphasis on advanced techniques in this community. In Melee, you simply did not stand a chance if you were not familiar with the bread and butter ATs. In brawl, people were desperate to find ATs that were relevant, but sadly the game had very few significant ones to speak of, at least when compared to Melee. People obsess over ATs because they want to find ATs. Whether or not they are relevant is another issue entirely. One glance at the list of Brawls "ATs" and you will start to get a feel for the level of desperation in finding them. ATs would have given Brawl the competitive edge it needed. It would have helped players to execute moves faster, maybe even make combos possible, which is something the developers deliberately tried to hinder. But alas, Brawl was terrible for that very reason. I have high hopes for this new one. Nintendo is on board with the competitive community now.

I wouldn't put too much stock in ATs this time around. Nintendo will patch out anything "game breaking." Unless it turns out that the community actually really likes the AT. We will have to fight for our ATs, so don't be in such a hurry to unveil them.

Well, they've liked perfect pivot and haven't really minded the ledge-cancelled QAC, so it's safe to say that so long as whatever is discovered is easy and accessible to everyone or hard with low reward, they'll keep it in.
Wectoring, sadly, is gone.

As far as Melee goes, I dunno; I look at some Sheik and Jigglypuff mains, and they don't really need to do much because their character is solid enough to do most of what they want/need to do without techs, and I think that's great.
In Brawl, it took me a long time to realize it, but the game's flow even without techs is really nice, and I think a lot of people don't realize how smooth it was (aside from the balance issues); I still absolutely love how Wario and Falco controlled, and it's kind of disappointing that Smash 4 took away from that.
The game was basic, but ATs allowed for some pretty interesting plays and still weren't necessary to play at a top level.

I didn't really want to look for ATs in Smash 4 because I wanted it to deliver smooth gameplay without them, but I can see that's not the case, and I don't believe Nintendo is really "on board with the competitive community" (I mean, for one thing, they hardly produced any adapters even though they knew there was a huge demand for it. They even advertised it in the direct!).
I honestly would like to see more real involvement from Nintendo if they truly do claim to be supportive of the competitive community, but as of right now, it seems like they're aiming to please the lower-level players who don't want anybody who's invested more time into the game to have any sort of edge on them, which is alright, but playing anywhere near optimally isn't fun anymore and I end up doing the same basic combos over and over again because there's hardly room for variation.

I'm not even concerned with ATs in Smash 4; the game would be fine without them if they'd just make attacks start up and end faster to give more variety to safe shield pressure and general attack strings.
Melee's nice with its ATs and I wouldn't dream of asking someone to take them out, but I'm pretty sure that if Smash 4 appeared to offer the same accessible versatility, a lot less people would be caring so much about ATs besides people who like to push a lot of buttons and show off between stocks (both of which I'm guilty of).

 

[Shadowfury333]

Because the idea of something you can use to prove you are better at a video game just by knowing it, while retaining all the surface trappings of abstract concepts like "skill" and "depth", appeals to a lot of people.

To expand on this in a different direction than @ Vincent21 , AT's (and other execution tests and solitaire components in games) are things that can be practiced easily on one's own, and easily measured.

Learning to respond to one's opponent intelligently in a wide range of situations requires other people to practice with, and this is intimidating. It's far easier to stay in training mode and just pound out the combo or the AT*. If that provides an edge against other players, then there's a sense of accomplishment without any previous embarrassment of losing repeatedly to learn how to respond to opponents.

Measuring it is also easier. If you are pounding out a combo or an AT alone, you know when it works (less so in Smash due to DI variance), and you know when you've dropped it. Once you see that it works reliably, then you've made progress, and you can see the progress of "I made it 30% of the time" to 50% to 75% to 99.99%. Fundamentals aren't so easily measured. They can be measured by considering how often you get baited or caught out compared to how often you predict your opponent and punish, but that's not easy to pay attention to while also generally trying to win. It also requires more adaptation to a changing situation, rather than anything easily repeated or controlled.

*Interestingly, "combos and ATs" could be replaced by "build orders and unit micromanagement" in RTS games, in contrast to more responsive skills like army composition, positioning, and expansion timing. A similar explosive series of arguments happened during StarCraft 2's development on Team Liquid due to reducing various difficulties in the game's interface, thus reducing the execution barrier moderately.