Why do some mechanics get taken out?

[Anomalus]

You guys are just going to talk past each other if you don't make usage and definitions of a few of these terms ("simple", "complex", "depth" and others) much more clear.

"Simple", in particular, is a very tricky term which I think shouldn't be used at all unless you make it very clear how you're interpreting it. Some people take "simple" to mean "not complex" , to others it means "not complicated" (this is very different from "not complex"), to others it just means "small" in some sense, to others it means "intuitive" , to others it means "easy", and all of these interpretations can get very confused very fast.

But most here are just throwing around these terms without realizing others are using the same name to speak of an unidentical concept.

 

[LancerStaff]

I've got a bunch to say about MK8, but I'll cut it short:
It's fun, it's replayable, but it has issues with item distribution and they could've brought back some better courses (in my opinion).
Also, Mario Kart offense is DRASTICALLY different from Smash offense.
I don't understand why you keep coming back to Mario Kart, although I admit it's an unforgettably fun series.

You're against techniques but you'll play the game anyway; I gathered that much.
As far as unintentional goes, some of the mechanics tie in with certain techniques which is why I spoke about them the way I did.
Would you consider foxtrotting a mechanic or a technique? (it's in demo build of Smash 4)
How about dashdancing? Brawl dashdancing?
And what of crouching to cancel dash? That was removed from Melee to Brawl.
You can still shield to cancel it, but that's still limiting our options; at what point does an intended mechanic become an unnecessary technique?
If someone plopped Smash 4 into my lap right now and they had added absolutely NOTHING but the ability to cancel dash with crouch, I'd be content because I have more control over my character and I can use that to further my playstyle.

Ledge canceling, RAR, usmash/utilt from dash, usmash/utilt/aerial OoS...
There are tons of mechanics/techniques out there -- do you have an issue against these things which give us more options?

Just a note, the item distribution system is based on distance instead of place, as to prevent people getting bullets when everybody is all bunched together. Once you start to get a feel for it you probably won't be complaining.

Anyways, I keep bringing up MK because it's a good example. It's solid proof that more offense isn't a good thing, and the same with techs. How much gameplay derailment is too much? Snakers and Melee players are really in the same situation, but what they're asking for has various levels of intrusion to lower levels of play. Why should we intrude at all?

For things like foxtrotting, it's really just Sakurai's decision. I'll use it if I can, but I won't complain if it's removed. We only need the basics to play SSB, and I'm fine with a game without any tech skill. KIU is a good example, considering there's only the one glitch that only effects stats and not the actual gameplay. The metagame didn't even budge with the glitch, even though it allowed otherwise impossible sets. (Magnus club with SR+3 is hilarious when used on those not in the know, but it's simply a waste of value for such a minor change.)

Like I said, it's Sakurai's choice.

I think he's using snaking and firehopping as examples of techniques that don't actually add anything to the game, and then lumping all other techniques in with them. At least that's what I'm getting out of it, because I don't see any other way Mario Kart would apply to this conversation. I could be wrong though.

Snaking does add something to the game. It completely changed how it's played, and there's people who liked it that way. What makes you right and those people wrong? Why do you deserve to get your 'techniques' back but not Snakers?

You're not exactly wrong that adding in movement and gameplay options makes the game more complex. The problem is, how do we decide how much complexity is too much? Shield-grabbing is a technique that combines two game mechanics, and I've met plenty of casual players who don't even realize it's possible. Shouldn't we take that out, if Smash is supposed to be simple? Fast-falling is a mechanic that increases your movement options in the air. Shouldn't we take that out for simplicity's sake? What about the ability to charge smash attacks? That wasn't in the original N64 game, so it's making the game more complex -- oh no! And don't even get me started on teching.

My point is that we're really at an impasse if we're just using subjective opinion to decide which options are too complex, and how many options are too many. Experienced players can use techniques like the ones I've listed here to totally trash casual players, even without anything more advanced. But for some reason you're not advocating the removal of all of those. So apparently you're not making a principled stand against complexity at all! You're simply arguing for your own pet idea of where to draw the line.

Well, of course it's subjective opinion. But Sakurai is at the helm, and no doubt his opinion matters more than ours.

And you're definitely right about what I think in this case. I've been saying that there's no right place to draw the line, going back to the Snaking example, and the people wanting to move said line I can't help but feel are claiming to be entitled to this change when they aren't.

 

[WastingPenguins]

Well, of course it's subjective opinion. But Sakurai is at the helm, and no doubt his opinion matters more than ours.

And you're definitely right about what I think in this case. I've been saying that there's no right place to draw the line, going back to the Snaking example, and the people wanting to move said line I can't help but feel are claiming to be entitled to this change when they aren't.

Imagine that Sakurai revealed a Smash Bros. that removed grabs, smash attacks and rolling, and justified it by saying that those mechanics were too complicated for beginners to learn. You'd probably be pretty pissed and want those features to return. Care to explain how that scenario woulad be any different from the one we're currently describing, aside from the fact that you seem to have identified an arbitrarily low threshold for "complexity"? Call it entitlement if you want. Would you be "entitled" to desire that shielding returned if that mechanic was removed entirely, for example?

 

[PCHU]

Just a note, the item distribution system is based on distance instead of place, as to prevent people getting bullets when everybody is all bunched together. Once you start to get a feel for it you probably won't be complaining.

Anyways, I keep bringing up MK because it's a good example. It's solid proof that more offense isn't a good thing, and the same with techs. How much gameplay derailment is too much? Snakers and Melee players are really in the same situation, but what they're asking for has various levels of intrusion to lower levels of play. Why should we intrude at all?

For things like foxtrotting, it's really just Sakurai's decision. I'll use it if I can, but I won't complain if it's removed. We only need the basics to play SSB, and I'm fine with a game without any tech skill. KIU is a good example, considering there's only the one glitch that only effects stats and not the actual gameplay. The metagame didn't even budge with the glitch, even though it allowed otherwise impossible sets. (Magnus club with SR+3 is hilarious when used on those not in the know, but it's simply a waste of value for such a minor change.)

As I've said before with Snaking, it gives an absolute advantage to every aspect of the character involved, meaning they're able to achieve their goal faster than others who don't do it, whereas techniques in Melee just gave you advanced mobility, which may help to set up combos/KOs but the techniques themselves aren't doing the winning.

And why does this keep coming back to casual play?
Casual play is fine as-is; I do wish they'd bring back the flipper and invisibility cloak, but casuals typically aren't dead-set on winning (unless they practice the game, in which case I'm sure they wouldn't care what they'd have to learn to get better at it), so the game needs nothing more at their level.
What makes Smash great is that it LOOKS like it should be simple, but there's a lot more to it for those that choose to truly learn it, so anyone can pick it up and have a great time with it, but there's a whole different level of play beyond that.

You know, even in Brawl, I'd have people -- casuals -- ask me how to do a certain tech, and I'd show 'em.
Item dashing, zap jumping, magnet pull, QAC, all of it; people found them fun.
Not everyone is butthurt that they lost to a tech, because they didn't -- they lost to the player.
I played Project M with a bunch of people and they said that they liked the game, but the characters were hard to control because they were used to Brawl.
Not a single person complained about techs.
In fact, an Ike main thought it was the coolest thing that you can jump and walljump out of quickdraw.

The game's intention is for people to have fun.
That's why there are so many options to change the game, and that's why this extra layer of tech giving us options has existed for so long.
It's not like a mean group of competitive players is teaming up on the poor defenseless casuals; one group has one preferred method of play and the other has theirs.
The point is to have a game that's enjoyable at all levels of play, and if offense can actually equal defense this time, I'm pretty sure it'll draw in even more attention.

 

[menotyou135]

Why would anyone ever say a Smash Bros game is too complex? It's the easiest to learn fighting game ever (except divekick, if that counts). You have 2 attack buttons, a jump button, a shield button, and a grab button (which is a combo of shield and normal attack). That's only 4 or 5 buttons to learn. Every character has only 19 attacks. There are no quarter circle, half circle, full circle, dragon punch motions, charge motions, and double those motions needed to do basic attacks. This game is VERY playable on a gamepad. Other fighting games are too complex to play on one. This game is super intuitive because all combos are links and the game is about movement rather than move set. Any idiot can learn this game

You are comparing apples to oranges and saying that apples are better because they are more red.

Smash's skill isn't from button combinations and quarter circles like other fighters. Smash's skill comes from the unique mechanics that it possesses.

I could make the same argument in reverse when talking about movement in other fighters. "Oh your game doesn't have platforms to move around on? There aren't changrabs? There is no edge-guarding? You can't move freely around the map? There is no K.O. Mechanic? The characters move around so slow. There is no wavedashing (for most fighters)? No l-canceling? Those games are way too simple."

As you can see in my example, the argument of pointing out thing that aren't in a game is not the correct way of critiquing it. It misses the bigger picture. Saying that smash is simple because there aren't quarter circles is simply not a very concise argument.

Now if you were to explain that the complex characteristics of other fighters are more complex than the complex characteristics of smash, then your argument would be much more valid and it is completely reasonable to make an argument on that premise rather than saying than trying to make it fit into a schema of other fighters.

BTW, I agree that most other fighters are more complex. I just disagree with how you went about making the argument.

 

[Anomalus]

-snip-

I think his point was that Smash games are streamlined enough and that the ruleset is smaller than most other fighters. He's not saying that there are less interactions within the ruleset, but that there are less elements to learn before you can get to those interactions.

I'm not sure to what extent other fighters are more complex, but I do think they're usually more complicated.

 

[RODO]

Well, of course it's subjective opinion. But Sakurai is at the helm, and no doubt his opinion matters more than ours.

And you're definitely right about what I think in this case. I've been saying that there's no right place to draw the line, going back to the Snaking example, and the people wanting to move said line I can't help but feel are claiming to be entitled to this change when they aren't.

I just don't like how you seem to imply that fan feedback means nothing when we are going to be giving them our money. Even if the competitive to casual ratio is only a few hundred thousand against a few million it is still a sizable chunk of money to be had. And I still argue that we promote the game and help sales in the long run as well as buy Wii U's and games for venues and such.

 

[Dapplegonger]

I don't think many casuals dislike techs being used against them unless they're little brats who think that they are the best at the game and who say that techs are cheap, using them as excuses. I feel like casual players would actually find techs fun to do if they use the right characters (i.e. learn wavedashing through Luigi, l-canceling through Bowser/Ganondorf or Link's dair). They may not take them very seriously in an actual match, but as a semi-casual player myself, learning tech skill gives me a sense of accomplishment and is just fun to use.

No one would benefit from the removal of tech skill. Casual players could not learn these techniques and feel that sense of accomplishment, or they wouldn't care at all, whatever the case may be. The little brats would get crushed by the better players anyway, and while the competitive community would not have to listen to the brats' whining, they do not have as many options. I guess there is one group that would benefit, and that is the group of players (primarily Brawl players) that rely more on mind games to do well.

My point of view on the prevalence of mindgames based on the amount of mechanics is that mindgames are just as important no matter the amount, but they have different types of importance. In Melee for example, mindgames are used more to force the opponents into unfavorable positions in which they can be comboed or gimped, while mindgames in Brawl, with overall better recoveries and a more defensive oriented gameplay, are more used to approach because it is so hard to do so and to get in the other player's head. Both are perfectly valid ways to play, and both work, it's just the one with more mechanics is generally more exciting while the ones with less seem a lot more tense. It just comes down to preference, with most people enjoying the fast paced, exciting one more.

 

[RODO]

I don't think many casuals dislike techs being used against them unless they're little brats who think that they are the best at the game and who say that techs are cheap, using them as excuses. I feel like casual players would actually find techs fun to do if they use the right characters (i.e. learn wavedashing through Luigi, l-canceling through Bowser/Ganondorf or Link's dair). They may not take them very seriously in an actual match, but as a semi-casual player myself, learning tech skill gives me a sense of accomplishment and is just fun to use.

No one would benefit from the removal of tech skill. Casual players could not learn these techniques and feel that sense of accomplishment, or they wouldn't care at all, whatever the case may be. The little brats would get crushed by the better players anyway, and while the competitive community would not have to listen to the brats' whining, they do not have as many options. I guess there is one group th at would benefit, and that is the group of players (primarily Brawl players) that rely more on mind games to do well.

My point of view on the prevalence of mindgames based on the amount of mechanics is that mindgames are just as important no matter the amount, but they have different types of importance. In Melee for example, mindgames are used more to force the opponents into unfavorable positions in which they can be comboed or gimped, while mindgames in Brawl, with overall better recoveries and a more defensive oriented gameplay, are more used to approach because it is so hard to do so and to get in the other player's head. Both are perfectly valid ways to play, and both work, it's just the one with more mechanics is generally more exciting while the ones with less seem a lot more tense. It just comes down to preference, with most people enjoying the fast paced, exciting one more.

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html made me think of this

 

[EPsilon933]

You are comparing apples to oranges and saying that apples are better because they are more red.

Smash's skill isn't from button combinations and quarter circles like other fighters. Smash's skill comes from the unique mechanics that it possesses.

I could make the same argument in reverse when talking about movement in other fighters. "Oh your game doesn't have platforms to move around on? There aren't changrabs? There is no edge-guarding? You can't move freely around the map? There is no K.O. Mechanic? The characters move around so slow. There is no wavedashing (for most fighters)? No l-canceling? Those games are way too simple."

As you can see in my example, the argument of pointing out thing that aren't in a game is not the correct way of critiquing it. It misses the bigger picture. Saying that smash is simple because there aren't quarter circles is simply not a very concise argument.

Now if you were to explain that the complex characteristics of other fighters are more complex than the complex characteristics of smash, then your argument would be much more valid and it is completely reasonable to make an argument on that premise rather than saying than trying to make it fit into a schema of other fighters.

BTW, I agree that most other fighters are more complex. I just disagree with how you went about making the argument.

I guess you still got my intended idea at least

 

[PCHU]

http://www.sirlin.net/ptw-book/intermediates-guide.html made me think of this

I remember reading this a while back; I think a lot of others could stand to read it, too.

I guess you still got my intended idea at least

If you're gonna get Smash 4, we gotta play sometime.

 

[EPsilon933]

If you're gonna get Smash 4, we gotta play sometime.

Play on a wired connection to reduce lag. I've talked to Brawl players both online and offline and they don't know about and don't care about playing on a wired connection to reduce lag. Less lag is nice when playing online. Even Nintendo advised players to buy Wii U LAN adapters to reduce lag in the Smash 4 Nintendo Direct

 

[LancerStaff]

Imagine that Sakurai revealed a Smash Bros. that removed grabs, smash attacks and rolling, and justified it by saying that those mechanics were too complicated for beginners to learn. You'd probably be pretty pissed and want those features to return. Care to explain how that scenario woulad be any different from the one we're currently describing, aside from the fact that you seem to have identified an arbitrarily low threshold for "complexity"? Call it entitlement if you want. Would you be "entitled" to desire that shielding returned if that mechanic was removed entirely, for example?

That's a bit different. In your example, Sakurai would be removing the central mechanics that make up SSB. Dashdancing is an unintentional use of the physics of the game. And would anybody argue DDing is as important as guarding? While one could argue for L-canceling, what was the point of the mechanic anyway? I'd say L-canceling did the exact opposite of what SSB was supposed to do. But of course, this arbitrary threshold was set by Sakurai and not me.

As I've said before with Snaking, it gives an absolute advantage to every aspect of the character involved, meaning they're able to achieve their goal faster than others who don't do it, whereas techniques in Melee just gave you advanced mobility, which may help to set up combos/KOs but the techniques themselves aren't doing the winning.

And why does this keep coming back to casual play?
Casual play is fine as-is; I do wish they'd bring back the flipper and invisibility cloak, but casuals typically aren't dead-set on winning (unless they practice the game, in which case I'm sure they wouldn't care what they'd have to learn to get better at it), so the game needs nothing more at their level.
What makes Smash great is that it LOOKS like it should be simple, but there's a lot more to it for those that choose to truly learn it, so anyone can pick it up and have a great time with it, but there's a whole different level of play beyond that.

You know, even in Brawl, I'd have people -- casuals -- ask me how to do a certain tech, and I'd show 'em.
Item dashing, zap jumping, magnet pull, QAC, all of it; people found them fun.
Not everyone is butthurt that they lost to a tech, because they didn't -- they lost to the player.
I played Project M with a bunch of people and they said that they liked the game, but the characters were hard to control because they were used to Brawl.
Not a single person complained about techs.
In fact, an Ike main thought it was the coolest thing that you can jump and walljump out of quickdraw.

The game's intention is for people to have fun.
That's why there are so many options to change the game, and that's why this extra layer of tech giving us options has existed for so long.
It's not like a mean group of competitive players is teaming up on the poor defenseless casuals; one group has one preferred method of play and the other has theirs.
The point is to have a game that's enjoyable at all levels of play, and if offense can actually equal defense this time, I'm pretty sure it'll draw in even more attention.

You've said I set my limit on 'techs' too low. Why can't yours be too high?

You are again claiming techs don't effect casual play when they do.

Not a single person complained. That you knew, anyway. Plenty of people complain. Should Nintendo attract this complaining? No. What about the hardcores that are complaining? Many will be happy with SSB4, and those who complain will be seen as whiny, like what happened with Brawl. The number of players who don't want techs are very volcal, and very real. There's even plenty of competitive players against 'techs'.

It's impossible to appeal to all audiences. Where do we draw the line on who doesn't matter?

I just don't like how you seem to imply that fan feedback means nothing when we are going to be giving them our money. Even if the competitive to casual ratio is only a few hundred thousand against a few million it is still a sizable chunk of money to be had. And I still argue that we promote the game and help sales in the long run as well as buy Wii U's and games for venues and such.

Smashboards is only 1% of sales. How many of us are buying the game regardless? Most of us, since even here the casuals outnumber the hardcores. Appealing more to casuals will likely get more sales then they'll lose from hardcores.

 

[EPsilon933]

That's a bit different. In your example, Sakurai would be removing the central mechanics that make up SSB. Dashdancing is an unintentional use of the physics of the game. And would anybody argue DDing is as important as guarding? While one could argue for L-canceling, what was the point of the mechanic anyway? I'd say L-canceling did the exact opposite of what SSB was supposed to do. But of course, this arbitrary threshold was set by Sakurai and not me.

This was taken from an archive of what the official Smash Bros page once looked like

You are again claiming techs don't effect casual play when they do.

how do they affect them when they don't even know them?

Not a single person complained. That you knew, anyway. Plenty of people complain. Should Nintendo attract this complaining? No. What about the hardcores that are complaining? Many will be happy with SSB4, and those who complain will be seen as whiny, like what happened with Brawl. The number of players who don't want techs are very volcal, and very real. There's even plenty of competitive players against 'techs'.

Aren't there a lot more for techs?

It's impossible to appeal to all audiences. Where do we draw the line on who doesn't matter?

Very true, but I think having options that both players can like or dislike would be nice. Both groups aren't perfectly mutually exclusive

Smashboards is only 1% of sales. How many of us are buying the game regardless? Most of us, since even here the casuals outnumber the hardcores. Appealing more to casuals will likely get more sales then they'll lose from hardcores.

But the game design choices are also bad for casuals. With the attack lag being so long as it currently is, it discourages casuals from running up to each other to hit each other

 

[LancerStaff]

This was taken from an archive of what the official Smash Bros page once looked like



how do they affect them when they don't even know them?



Aren't there a lot more for techs?



Very true, but I think having options that both players can like or dislike would be nice. Both groups aren't perfectly mutually exclusive



But the game design choices are also bad for casuals. With the attack lag being so long as it currently is, it discourages casuals from running up to each other to hit each other

*sigh* That's why I specifically mentioned L-canceling. It's a mechanic, not a 'tech.' I think L-canceling is a horrible mechanic anyway.

Online play, other player interaction.

Barely, if at all. You think all these Brawl players really care about 'techs?'

You'd think they are with how much hate is spread around.

But now it means there's more space for casuals to think.

 

[WastingPenguins]

That's a bit different. In your example, Sakurai would be removing the central mechanics that make up SSB. Dashdancing is an unintentional use of the physics of the game. And would anybody argue DDing is as important as guarding? While one could argue for L-canceling, what was the point of the mechanic anyway? I'd say L-canceling did the exact opposite of what SSB was supposed to do. But of course, this arbitrary threshold was set by Sakurai and not me.

The point is that if you take all the mechanics in Smash Bros. individually you can pretty reasonably rank how important they are to the core gameplay. Most important would be the basic things like moving left and right, jumping, and basic attacks. I’d say those are the things you could call the baseline mechanics. AND THEN you start adding complexity on top of that. Maybe next in importance would be shielding. Maybe next would be recovery moves. Maybe next would be special moves. Maybe next would be shield grabbing. And so on.


You keep saying that things like dash dancing are contrary to the core mission of simple, accessible gameplay, and yet you admit you want to layer all kinds of complexity on top of the most basic game components. The same arguments you use to dismiss l-canceling could be used VERBATIM to dismiss shield-grabbing. The only justification you can come up with for dismissing a tech you dislike is an appeal to simplicity, and yet I have pointed out over and over that you ARE NOT taking a principled stand against complexity in Smash Bros. You contradict yourself, and so your argument really boils down to “I personally would like for Smash Bros. to be *this* complex, and no more," or "I personally would like for Smash Bros. to have *this kind* of complexity and not another kind."

You've said I set my limit on 'techs' too low. Why can't yours be too high?

Exactly. For you, maybe it is too high. We’re arguing about a personal preference for a spot on the spectrum of complexity. And yet you want to pretend that we’re debating the merits of different philosophies (simplicity vs. complexity.) The fact is, YOU want a complex game too.

 

[Kamiko]

Snaking does add something to the game. It completely changed how it's played, and there's people who liked it that way. What makes you right and those people wrong? Why do you deserve to get your 'techniques' back but not Snakers?

I don't know what you mean by "my" techniques, but all snaking does is make a race go by faster. A higher speed setting would accomplish that better. It's really not much different than L-canceling and Wavedashing. They add complexity by requiring extra input from players, but add no depth because they do things that could easiy be done by adjusting the existing game mechanics.

 

[Ulevo]

I don't know what you mean by "my" techniques, but all snaking does is make a race go by faster. A higher speed setting would accomplish that better. It's really not much different than L-canceling and Wavedashing. They add complexity by requiring extra input from players, but add no depth because they do things that could easiy be done by adjusting the existing game mechanics.

L-Cancelling, yes. Wavedashing, no.

 

[LancerStaff]

The point is that if you take all the mechanics in Smash Bros. individually you can pretty reasonably rank how important they are to the core gameplay. Most important would be the basic things like moving left and right, jumping, and basic attacks. I’d say those are the things you could call the baseline mechanics. AND THEN you start adding complexity on top of that. Maybe next in importance would be shielding. Maybe next would be recovery moves. Maybe next would be special moves. Maybe next would be shield grabbing. And so on.


You keep saying that things like dash dancing are contrary to the core mission of simple, accessible gameplay, and yet you admit you want to layer all kinds of complexity on top of the most basic game components. The same arguments you use to dismiss l-canceling could be used VERBATIM to dismiss shield-grabbing. The only justification you can come up with for dismissing a tech you dislike is an appeal to simplicity, and yet I have pointed out over and over that you ARE NOT taking a principled stand against complexity in Smash Bros. You contradict yourself, and so your argument really boils down to “I personally would like it for Smash Bros. to be *this* complex, and no more.”





Exactly. For you, maybe it is too high. We’re arguing about a personal preference for a spot on the spectrum of complexity. And yet you want to pretend that we’re debating the merits of different philosophies (simplicity vs. complexity.) The fact is, YOU want a complex game too.

You just don't understand what I think. Am I not allowed to prefer the intentional mechanics over the glitches? I'll repeat myself, there isn't a level of complexity the game should be at. Again, why is yours right and mine wrong? My idea of how complex it should be just happens to be closer to what the game is turning out to be.

 

[HeroMystic]

You just don't understand what I think. Am I not allowed to prefer the intentional mechanics over the glitches? I'll repeat myself, there isn't a level of complexity the game should be at. Again, why is yours right and mine wrong? My idea of how complex it should be just happens to be closer to what the game is turning out to be.

I'm interested in knowing if you believe Brawl's techs are "glitches" as well.

 

[Ulevo]

You just don't understand what I think. Am I not allowed to prefer the intentional mechanics over the glitches? I'll repeat myself, there isn't a level of complexity the game should be at. Again, why is yours right and mine wrong? My idea of how complex it should be just happens to be closer to what the game is turning out to be.

And once again he rebuttals the conversation with the "why is your opinion right but mine's not?" tactic.

 

[Kamiko]

L-Cancelling, yes. Wavedashing, no.

Wavedashing has the advantage of letting players act as though they were standing regularly, right? Couldn't the regular dashing be tweaked to perform the same way easily?

 

[Ulevo]

Wavedashing has the advantage of letting players act as though they were standing regularly, right? Couldn't the regular dashing be tweaked to perform the same way easily?

Uh, well. It's not that simple. Wavedashing did a lot more than that. The mechanic in question is really the ability to airdodge in to a platform while also maintaining movement, so by that regard it allowed you to instantly 'land' on platforms, increasing the pace on stages. It allowed you to move off of ledges. It allowed you to retreat and attack simultaneously while running or moving forward. It was an alternative way to return to the stage. The applications it had were literally too big to list. It's by no means a linear mechanic that could have its use emulated by simply modifying other basic mechanics.

Splatoon for the win.

 

[thrillagorilla]

Wavedashing has the advantage of letting players act as though they were standing regularly, right? Couldn't the regular dashing be tweaked to perform the same way easily?

If I'm not mistaken by looking at the videos put up by VGBootcamp on youtube, they did. I am now looking at Smash 4 with much more interest on a competitive level. Give me a moment and I'll put a link to the video where it is most featured in an edit to this post...

Here it is. If you are worried about having to crouch to cancel the dash, don't be. You don't have to, the player featuring the character simply thought you needed to when you didn't. In the Marth video, you can see Marth pivot Forward-Smashing, awesome stuff.

On a side note, successful troll is successful. I don't even have to see the posts, just the responses. Don't feed the trolls, kids.

 

[LancerStaff]

I don't know what you mean by "my" techniques, but all snaking does is make a race go by faster. A higher speed setting would accomplish that better. It's really not much different than L-canceling and Wavedashing. They add complexity by requiring extra input from players, but add no depth because they do things that could easiy be done by adjusting the existing game mechanics.

Saying Snaking just made you go faster is like saying Wavedashing just pushed you forward. It completely changed the game.

I'm interested in knowing if you believe Brawl's techs are "glitches" as well.

I'd like to see somebody argue that DACUSing isn't a glitch. Dash Usmashes? It probably isn't since it's in SSB4. I honestly don't care what people call them though.

And once again he rebuttals the conversation with the "why is your opinion right but mine's not?" tactic.

Did I say mine was right either?

 

[Ulevo]

Did I say mine was right either?

No, you just derailed the train of logic in the conversation because once again you couldn't come up with something. Who's right or wrong wasn't important.

 

[HeroMystic]

I'd like to see somebody argue that DACUSing isn't a glitch. Dash Usmashes? It probably isn't since it's in SSB4. I honestly don't care what people call them though.

There's far more techs in Brawl than DACUS.

 

[Ulevo]

There's far more techs in Brawl than DACUS.

No there's not. And if anyone tells you that, they're just in league with the people who tell you that there's more to Melee than Wavedashing and L-Cancelling. You shouldn't trust those people either.

 

[WastingPenguins]

You just don't understand what I think. Am I not allowed to prefer the intentional mechanics over the glitches? I'll repeat myself, there isn't a level of complexity the game should be at. Again, why is yours right and mine wrong? My idea of how complex it should be just happens to be closer to what the game is turning out to be.

OK, well then at least you're willing to admit that we're just discussing personal preference for the level and kinds of complexities that we want in the game, and you are not in fact making a defense of some "spirit of the game" which my philosophy contradicts. (Hint: I don't want any "glitches" in the game either and I don't know why you think I do.)

I'll say one thing that's based in concrete fact and not just opinion: A more complex Smash Bros. like Melee is the one that's been shown to have both huge popularity in casual play AND a hugely successful and sustainable competitive scene. That alone should be enough to show you that your preference, while valid in it's own right, is in the minority.

 

[HeroMystic]

No there's not. And if anyone tells you that, they're just in league with the people who tell you that there's more to Melee than Wavedashing and L-Cancelling. You shouldn't trust those people either.

Glide-tossing, B-reversal, Wavebouncing, Pivot Grabs are techs that I can name off the top of my head. I don't see why one wouldn't consider them techs eithers, especially Glide-Tossing.

 

[Ulevo]

Glide-tossing, B-reversal, Wavebouncing, Pivot Grabs are techs that I can name off the top of my head. I don't see why one wouldn't consider them techs eithers, especially Glide-Tossing.

Since you aren't wearing a scouter, I'll let you know that my sarcasm in this form is over 9000.

 

[HeroMystic]

Since you aren't wearing a scouter, I'll let you know that my sarcasm in this form is over 9000.

I see.

I almost took you out back, bro.

 

[LancerStaff]

No, you just derailed the train of logic in the conversation because once again you couldn't come up with something. Who's right or wrong wasn't important.

It is. People keep trying to throw opinions at me as facts.

There's far more techs in Brawl than DACUS.

Glidetossing, BDACUS, Wavebouncing, etceteras. I even main a character with plenty of his own 'techs.' Arrow looping, (if you even want to call it that instead of a mechanic) Wingdashing, (probably the best use of the word 'technique' in context of SSB IMO) wing refreshing, and even his silly spot dodge that lets you move forwards and backwards with the right timing.

No there's not. And if anyone tells you that, they're just in league with the people who tell you that there's more to Melee than Wavedashing and L-Cancelling. You shouldn't trust those people either.

If you're aiming that at me, let me clear some things up. I bring those up most because they have significant effects on the metagame and I understand them more than other 'techs.' Okay? I understand there's more then that.

OK, well then at least you're willing to admit that we're just discussing personal preference for the level and kinds of complexities that we want in the game, and you are not in fact making a defense of some "spirit of the game" which my philosophy contradicts. (Hint: I don't want any "glitches" in the game either and I don't know why you think I do.)

I'll say one thing that's based in concrete fact and not just opinion: A more complex Smash Bros. like Melee is the one that's been shown to have both huge popularity in casual play AND a hugely successful and sustainable competitive scene. That alone should be enough to show you that your preference, while valid in it's own right, is in the minority.

Nice to see we've mostly come to an agreement. But I wouldn't say those who want a 'techless' SSB are in a minority

 

[Ulevo]

It is. People keep trying to throw opinions at me as facts.

And as usual, you're ignoring the logic behind the opinions they give you because, since they're opinions, they're not facts, and you can't be wrong.

You're like the guy that says that because you can't prove God doesn't exist, he must be real. Yeah.

If you're aiming that at me, let me clear some things up. I bring those up most because they have significant effects on the metagame and I understand them more than other 'techs.' Okay? I understand there's more then that.

 

[WastingPenguins]

Nice to see we've mostly come to an agreement. But I wouldn't say those who want a 'techless' SSB are in a minority

95 percent of people who will play this game have never heard of l-canceling or dash dancing or any other techniques, and wouldn't even notice if they were included. Half of them don't even know about shield-grabbing. And yet you want to say the majority of potential players KNOW about these techs, AND actively dislike them? Sorry but you are obviously in the minority.

 

[HeroMystic]

Glidetossing, BDACUS, Wavebouncing, etceteras. I even main a character with plenty of his own 'techs.' Arrow looping, (if you even want to call it that instead of a mechanic) Wingdashing, (probably the best use of the word 'technique' in context of SSB IMO) wing refreshing, and even his silly spot dodge that lets you move forwards and backwards with the right timing.

While I mostly agree Brawl players labelled everything a tech too much, it really seems like at this point you're being unclear with your thesis, or just being very semantically confusing. I'm not sure what you're looking for beyond Sakurai acknowledging techs that we as a community find.

 

[Kamiko]

Uh, well. It's not that simple. Wavedashing did a lot more than that. The mechanic in question is really the ability to airdodge in to a platform while also maintaining movement, so by that regard it allowed you to instantly 'land' on platforms, increasing the pace on stages. It allowed you to move off of ledges. It allowed you to retreat and attack simultaneously while running or moving forward. It was an alternative way to return to the stage. The applications it had were literally too big to list. It's by no means a linear mechanic that could have its use emulated by simply modifying other basic mechanics.

Hmm, I'll give you the retreating attack part, but the other things could be done by allowing players to act immediately after touching the ground. Megaman Zero does it, if you want me to name an example I'm familiar with.

If I'm not mistaken by looking at the videos put up by VGBootcamp on youtube, they did. I am now looking at Smash 4 with much more interest on a competitive level. Give me a moment and I'll put a link to the video where it is most featured in an edit to this post...

Here it is. If you are worried about having to crouch to cancel the dash, don't be. You don't have to, the player featuring the character simply thought you needed to when you didn't. In the Marth video, you can see Marth pivot Forward-Smashing, awesome stuff.

That's really nice to see, and Bowser's looking better every time I see him. I still think Marth's forward Smash is too fast for its range though.

Saying Snaking just made you go faster is like saying Wavedashing just pushed you forward. It completely changed the game.

It changed the way players interacted with the game, but within the game, all it did was make players go faster. Unless there's something I'm forgetting that perhaps you'd like to remind me of?

 

[PCHU]

It is. People keep trying to throw opinions at me as facts.

...

If you're aiming that at me, let me clear some things up. I bring those up most because they have significant effects on the metagame and I understand them more than other 'techs.' Okay? I understand there's more then that.

While these things do affect the metagame, keep in mind that Smash can be played any way you want to play it -- you can always opt to not use these tactics and there are generally ways to counter these tactics.
For instance, let's take in Falco as a character.
Do you -have- to pillar to win? Most certainly not.
It would probably help a ton, but it won't make you win; that's up to the rest of your skills to decide.

I don't think crouch canceling a dash or dash dancing is game-breaking vs a casual; they're more likely to complain that I keep grabbing them out of their roll or ledgeguarding.

Opinion:
If there is one obscure tech I would actually like to come back, it'd be moonwalking/stickywalking.
I don't know anyone that spoke out against it, and it'd be fun to have it return (has anyone confirmed the return of the infinite dash on ledge?).

 

[Ulevo]

Hmm, I'll give you the retreating attack part, but the other things could be done by allowing players to act immediately after touching the ground. Megaman Zero does it, if you want me to name an example I'm familiar with.

But you can already act immediately when you touch the ground. The point isn't that you can act immediately upon landing, it's that because the technique stems from both a jump and a maneuver that controls when you hault aerial movement, you can do things you otherwise couldn't. I don't see how your suggestion allows you to snap to platforms faster, for instance. It also doesn't let you act out of shield without suffering shield drop lag, as another example.

 

[LancerStaff]

And as usual, you're ignoring the logic behind the opinions they give you because, since they're opinions, they're not facts, and you can't be wrong.

You're like the guy that says that because you can't prove God doesn't exist, he must be real. Yeah.

I have a point, I guess. It'd be nice if people would present opinions as opinions instead, though.

And... Okay?

95 percent of people who will play this game have never heard of l-canceling or dash dancing or any other techniques, and wouldn't even notice if they were included. Half of them don't even know about shield-grabbing. And yet you want to say the majority of potential players KNOW about these techs, AND actively dislike them? Sorry but you are obviously in the minority.

And you think that competitive players aren't in a minority? I've seen plenty of casuals just instantly turn at the mention of 'techniques.'

While I mostly agree Brawl players labelled everything a tech too much, it really seems like at this point you're being unclear with your thesis, or just being very semantically confusing. I'm not sure what you're looking for beyond Sakurai acknowledging techs that we as a community find.

I'm not too sure what you're trying to say. You're confused by what I think is a 'tech' or not? If so, I assure you I'm not trying to make this complicated.

It changed the way players interacted with the game, but within the game, all it did was make players go faster. Unless there's something I'm forgetting that perhaps you'd like to remind me of?

It's hard to explain since I've never gotten past 'casual' Snaking, but it changed the best lines, first and foremost. Snaking also required much more precise player imput, raising the skill level of MK much like Melee's techs did. Again, you're just generalizing what Snaking did.

While these things do affect the metagame, keep in mind that Smash can be played any way you want to play it -- you can always opt to not use these tactics and there are generally ways to counter these tactics.
For instance, let's take in Falco as a character.
Do you -have- to pillar to win? Most certainly not.
It would probably help a ton, but it won't make you win; that's up to the rest of your skills to decide.

I don't think crouch canceling a dash or dash dancing is game-breaking vs a casual; they're more likely to complain that I keep grabbing them out of their roll or ledgeguarding.

Opinion:
If there is one obscure tech I would actually like to come back, it'd be moonwalking/stickywalking.
I don't know anyone that spoke out against it, and it'd be fun to have it return (has anyone confirmed the return of the infinite dash on ledge?).

But at a certain point these things are required, like a Falco vs Falco match. (Not too sure on the terminology in case I just said something stupid.)