Why is there such a heavy bias against zoners in Competitive Smash?

[hariooo]

Other characters can be punished harder than they can and don't have nearly the amount of upsides and ability ti punish as hard as spacies can.

Also this isn't Brawl is hardcore camping an issue right now.

Fox and Falco have strong defensive games as well but in terms of the punish game as strictly defined (once they are grabbed/hit), their weight and fall speed makes them (along with CFalcon) the most easily and severely punishable characters in Melee. If that's news to you, you never played Melee very seriously (which is fine).

The point was that Melee players are very familiar with camping (their two top tier characters are fantastic at running away/zoning, respectively), regardless of the external perception of them only preferring rushdown.

 

[Niala]

For the majority of people, including myself, characters whose design is based almost purely around zoning (I'm looking at you, ) are just not fun to play against. I think most people will admit that they like to feel as though they have some control over the pace of a match, but against characters who control a huge amount of space in between them and their opponent really well, you just don't get to make many decisions. Instead, you're forced to constantly react to whatever it is your opponent is throwing at you with a limited variety of viable options, and spend most of your time trying to find a way through instead of actually engaging them in a meaningful way that benefits you. On premise, zoning characters take control away from the person they're playing against, and as such is only fun for the person playing that character, not for the person playing against that character.

In particular in Smash, however, there's a very heavy bias on match-ups. While certain characters might have the speed and aggression to break through a ton of projectiles effectively, most do not, but are still required to do so to have any effect on the match. And even when they do, these zoning characters have a lot of defensive tool at their disposal to allow them to return to a position where they can again zone effectively, if they don't just have better options against them up close too. There also cases where the powerful zoning characters in question simply don't have enough weaknesses to counter-balance how much pressure they can apply at a whim. All in all they're just a frustrating experience to play against. I don't see how that's too complicated to understand.

 

[hariooo]

Yeah and for as much namedropping as Blazblue got in this thread, Iron Tager crushed face once he got through the wall of spam. Watching MikeZ like waaaaay back in the first iteration of that game was hype when he got like 50% combos off after being stuck in shield for half a minute.

Smash is at its best during the punish game.

 

[Ticker]

I apologize. I'm just really peeved at PMDT right now (and you can see that I'm anti-Project M).

Care to explain why?

DOUBLE POST COMBO (delete please)

 

[<π]

For the majority of people, including myself, characters whose design is based almost purely around zoning (I'm looking at you, ) are just not fun to play against. I think most people will admit that they like to feel as though they have some control over the pace of a match, but against characters who control a huge amount of space in between them and their opponent really well, you just don't get to make many decisions. Instead, you're forced to constantly react to whatever it is your opponent is throwing at you with a limited variety of viable options, and spend most of your time trying to find a way through instead of actually engaging them in a meaningful way that benefits you. On premise, zoning characters take control away from the person they're playing against, and as such is only fun for the person playing that character, not for the person playing against that character.

In particular in Smash, however, there's a very heavy bias on match-ups. While certain characters might have the speed and aggression to break through a ton of projectiles effectively, most do not, but are still required to do so to have any effect on the match. And even when they do, these zoning characters have a lot of defensive tool at their disposal to allow them to return to a position where they can again zone effectively, if they don't just have better options against them up close too. There also cases where the powerful zoning characters in question simply don't have enough weaknesses to counter-balance how much pressure they can apply at a whim. All in all they're just a frustrating experience to play against. I don't see how that's too complicated to understand.

I feel like literally every character in the game has an answer to projectile spamers.

But lets look at DH specifically from a general stand point.

TNT
-He can only have 1 out at any give time.
-His opponent can hit the TNT with a projectile or attack and change the TBT's direction for further activation.
-His opponent can hit the TNT into him.

Clay Pidgeon
-Only one out at a time.
-Condierable start up and End lag
-you can break the pidgeon with projectiles and attacks
-Can sheild without fear of big follow ups

The random guys
-HUGE start up
-you can kill them too

 

[SaltyKracka]

I feel like literally every character in the game has an answer to projectile spamers.

*coughGanondorfBowserDKcough*

 

[hanafuda]

A little off from the topic, but Do you guys think Link is a viable zoner?, the question may seem dumb, but someone said he isn´t a premier zoning character, so I just wanted to know your opinions on that.

 

[LancerStaff]

*coughGanondorfBowserDKcough*

*coughWizard'sKickWhirlingFortressDashAttackHack*

 

[otter]

For the majority of people, including myself, characters whose design is based almost purely around zoning (I'm looking at you, ) are just not fun to play against. I think most people will admit that they like to feel as though they have some control over the pace of a match, but against characters who control a huge amount of space in between them and their opponent really well, you just don't get to make many decisions. Instead, you're forced to constantly react to whatever it is your opponent is throwing at you with a limited variety of viable options, and spend most of your time trying to find a way through instead of actually engaging them in a meaningful way that benefits you. On premise, zoning characters take control away from the person they're playing against, and as such is only fun for the person playing that character, not for the person playing against that character.

In particular in Smash, however, there's a very heavy bias on match-ups. While certain characters might have the speed and aggression to break through a ton of projectiles effectively, most do not, but are still required to do so to have any effect on the match. And even when they do, these zoning characters have a lot of defensive tool at their disposal to allow them to return to a position where they can again zone effectively, if they don't just have better options against them up close too. There also cases where the powerful zoning characters in question simply don't have enough weaknesses to counter-balance how much pressure they can apply at a whim. All in all they're just a frustrating experience to play against. I don't see how that's too complicated to understand.

have you considered that duck hunt feels like he has lost control of the pace of the match once your inside and he can't do anything except take damage? Doesn't have any weaknesses to counter balance? c'mon, you're not even trying.

 

[Johnknight1]

The less action it involves, the more boring it is to me. I know not everyone will agree with me, but that's my opinion on what is fun to play against in Smash.

Rosaluma I find boring because it feels like Brawl (before the patch; I haven't faced a Rosaluma since then). I don't like playing Brawl. The only way to effectively beat Rosaluma (before the patch) for my main (Toon Link) was to throw projectiles and run away in similar fashion. Sure I've won every match I've played against Rosaluma, but it was boring, long, tedious, and something I actively avoided. And I don't want to change characters because Toon Link is my favorite character to play as.

Besides, if I'm not having fun, what's the point=??? Video games are fun, entertainment, and above all else (electronic) TOYS! If you aren't having fun, you're wasting your time, especially when you're like me and you have hundreds of other games to play that are fun.

And that right there is why a lot of people don't like Brawl. The camping, stalling, zoning, defensive heavy play, or whatever you call it/whatever it is made the game not fun to them. When a electronic toy (aka a video game) isn't fun to a person playing them, that person stops playing that games, play with another video game instead. There's nothing wrong with that.

Having said that, this is where a lot of the anti-zoning/defense-heavy/camping/stalling mindset comes from, not from "lol Melee". People found Brawl boring.. People in the 64 scene found their game boring when Superboomfan (Falconmaster3000?) camped hard at APEX 2012. Melee players did the same thing for all the times Congo Jungle 64 was camped on in singles.

The viewers and players getting camped/stalled/zoned on wanted to see something with more interaction between players, and defensive-heavy play in Smash sometimes doesn't involve that, especially when the stage is a factor in it. Once you understand that, it's easy to sympathize with people who don't like any sort of defensive playstyle or defensive stuff like that, even to an unreasonable level.

===

Personally for me in relations to Brawl, I won a match that got timed out (at 9 minutes) after my opponent camped and stalled with Meta Knight when down 2 stocks for over 6 minutes. It was my first time being timed out, and I had never had a match that made me want to put down my controller. My opponent tries to do it to me the next 2 matches after this the whole match. I thought it was so boring I tried to have fun and do wacky stuff instead of win and lost. It didn't work, and I wasn't having fun. I basically gave up on the last match after losing the 2nd match, and quit Brawl forever right then and there. I haven't played the game since then in its' vanilla form, and that was 5 years ago.

I made the right call for me because it wasn't fun and I know it won't be fun if I play it again. That, to me, is what I hate about camping and zoning to certain extents: when it's all about running away, having as little action as possible, and there's barely any offense that's exciting to beat it, it's not fun to me. If it's not fun, it's no use playing a game on a toy when I could be doing something more enjoyable and beneficial to me with my free time.

===

Having said that, in my case Rosaluma is more an exception than the rule, for me at least. Again, this is pre-patch; we'll see how it is post-patch, as well as how it goes as the meta-game develops and the match ups for characters develop.

Duck Hunt is different because with various characters smart approaching is a lot of fun. Plus a lot more strategies work against it, and I think it's a much smarter and mentally reinvigorating match up against Toon Link.

Ultimately though, playing bad campy Rosaluma players online feels boring. I don't want to play players like that even when I am dominating them (and yes, I win all these matches because I made the adjustments, which are boring). Rosaluma players in general are boring.

Until this boring kind of play is made irrelevant whether by Rosaluma meta game evolution, match up evolution, non-Rosaluma play meta game evolution, patching (which we got), or some combination of them, it will still be boring.

===

Back to my previous point though, just play for whatever is fun to you. If you don't enjoy the game/character/whatever, don't play it, regardless of what game/character/whatever it is.

Smash video games are toys, and toys are supposed to be fun. I know this is the competitive boards, but c'mon! The top players of each Smash game have more fun with those games than just about anyone else who plays those games! It should always be mentally stimulating. After all, Smash Bros. is a party game, and if you aren't having a party, you're doing it wrong. But regardless, don't ever apologize for what you enjoy, and don't ever attack anyone for what they enjoy in a Smash game either.
\\

 

[otter]

Rosalina is still very good, just not in her own tier.

 

[Epok]

A little off from the topic, but Do you guys think Link is a viable zoner?, the question may seem dumb, but someone said he isn´t a premier zoning character, so I just wanted to know your opinions on that.

I think Links mid range is pretty strong, but the problem is people play him super campy and I really don't think that's where his strengths lie. Link projectile game is use as a way to approach, as well as disrupt. He has a fair amount for aerial options he can use as follow ups and has at least 3 solid kill options. Especially after fixing his F smash. I like playing Link because he has a very adaptive play style that is easy to switch from zoning/camping to all in aggressive very naturally.

 

[scalpel]

There's a fundamental difference between zoning and rushing. Zoning allows the player to deal damage without taking damage themselves, while rushing is equally risky for both parties.

In other words, people like to think of themselves as chivalrous white knights when rushing, and therefore all other styles are inferior or wrong. Humanity in a nutshell.

 

[Eji1700]

There's a fundamental difference between zoning and rushing. Zoning allows the player to deal damage without taking damage themselves, while rushing is equally risky for both parties.

In other words, people like to think of themselves as chivalrous white knights when rushing, and therefore all other styles are inferior or wrong. Humanity in a nutshell.

This is a myth. Strong zoning still takes risks, and good rushdown can easily become more safe than some zoning(50/50's or worse vortex situations come to mind).

The point of zoning is that the risk pay's off by keeping them out, and while that can be a slower pace, that's usually fine. Some of the most hype matches i've ever watched are basically any decent zoning character vs Vangeif's gief. It's like some saturday morning cartoon/cliche trap where the wall is slowly closing in on them and they need to kill it before it gets in. Watching flawless execution on either side is amazing, and having someone chip him away can be just as awesome as seeing him get in once and tear them apart.

Hell smash zoning isn't even that bad when compared to some of the more oppressive and mindless **** that's happened over the years. Most of the zoning characters aren't even that great, and even if they are they often require knowledge of several moves and a lot of skill to play correctly.

 

[LightLV]

Yeah and for as much namedropping as Blazblue got in this thread, Iron Tager crushed face once he got through the wall of spam. Watching MikeZ like waaaaay back in the first iteration of that game was hype when he got like 50% combos off after being stuck in shield for half a minute.

Smash is at its best during the punish game.

Tager designed in such a way that once he lands a drive move, he immediately turns the momentum in such a way that he can end the match in seconds. He's the type of character with strong weaknesses and equally exaggerated strengths.


I namedropped Blazblue alot because I feel like it has the most well designed Zoners ive seen in fighting games. Nu-13 / Lambda-11 are probably the best example of a well-designed zoning character i can think off. EXTREMELY oppressive at optimal range, but once you finally get in, her defense is terrible and her entire focus shifts to "get away".

in BB, the idea of zoning is more like "I'm going to keep you where I want you and dominate you", because the feeling of getting caught is something along the lines of "SHT BURST BURST", to "well its over now, better luck next round.". In smash, the idea of zoning is more like "im going to throw out this move because you cant do anything about it". And getting caught it something like "meh, now i cant freely spam that move anymore". Or, maybe something like " this isn't going to KO him. Time to go in for the kill."

This is a myth. Strong zoning still takes risks, and good rushdown can easily become more safe than some zoning(50/50's or worse vortex situations come to mind).

The point of zoning is that the risk pay's off by keeping them out, and while that can be a slower pace, that's usually fine. Some of the most hype matches i've ever watched are basically any decent zoning character vs Vangeif's gief. It's like some saturday morning cartoon/cliche trap where the wall is slowly closing in on them and they need to kill it before it gets in. Watching flawless execution on either side is amazing, and having someone chip him away can be just as awesome as seeing him get in once and tear them apart.

1) I can think of nothing less hype than the Zangief vs. Zoner matchup. God those have to be the worst most campy matches ever.

2) I'd say in most games (that aren't marvel, because, marvel), the zoner is the character that always takes the most risk. They typically have the worst reversal options and crumble the easiest under pressure, with low health that allows the least amount of mistakes. They're strongest in one situation, which is usually with the opponent out of their face. The risk of the rushdown character is the exact same, except the optimal position of the opponent is just reversed. But the same issues arise. They have to catch the opponent where they want them and keep them there until they're dead.


The thing with Smash is, the whole strength vs weakness balance is a bit skewed, because the failure of a zoner to maintain his distance is forgiven, one way or another. The moment you touch the ground your given the same powerful escape options the whole roster has.

 

[scalpel]

This is a myth. Strong zoning still takes risks, and good rushdown can easily become more safe than some zoning(50/50's or worse vortex situations come to mind).

My post says nothing about whether zoning is actually right or wrong, just how it is when it comes to people's perceptions toward zoning.

The original question is: Why is there such a heavy bias against zoners. This is why.

 

[Johnknight1]

Well designed zoning can be beaten by proper application of a game's options, bad designed zoning allows for ease of zoning without much risk.

It's essentially the difference between say Snake (well designed zoning) and Meta Knight (bad designed zoning) in Brawl.

 

[TTTTTsd]

I dislike dealing with zoning but I respect it AS LONG AS it is valid. Link/Toon Link in Sm4sh for instance, winning with Ganon without customs (Wizard's Dropkick LOL) is a lot harder, but the game gives you options once you find patterns.

 

[Raijinken]

Some people don't like it, others like it. Me, I don't like run-away "zoning", but I'm fine with covering my approach with some Arcfire/PKFire spam. It's purely a matter of one's frustration tolerance.

Basically, I respect zoning, I don't respect camping, and in my mind, there's a clear difference (It's hard to win with what I call camping in Smash, not so much in other games). Just personal preference, though. If you camp too much, I'll just swap to a reflector and beat your camp.

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

I don't think its exclusive to smash, but definitely more prominent than other games. If we can consider Zoners the "control" or magey chars a good analogue would be TCGs like hearthstone and MTG (mostly standard format). Both of these communities whine when control decks are strong. MTG standard has been an aggro fest for the last few blocks. Idk its frustrarimg to me as a fan of these types of styles.

I get it it that its not fun to play againt, or as fun to watch (i guess). But its more frustrating when these type of people can't realize it promotes diversity in play styles which a) allows for more complexity and a deeper more robust metagame and b) allows for greater capacity for individual creativity in a match (which I guess is related to diversity.

Idk I just think of these people in the same wah I think about those who don't like movies like There Will be Blood because there's "too much talking" and not enough splosions. In the most hipster, condescending, fedora tipping, and elitist sense they just plebs n sheeps m8, ****em.

 

[LightLV]

Some people don't like it, others like it. Me, I don't like run-away "zoning", but I'm fine with covering my approach with some Arcfire/PKFire spam. It's purely a matter of one's frustration tolerance.

Basically, I respect zoning, I don't respect camping, and in my mind, there's a clear difference (It's hard to win with what I call camping in Smash, not so much in other games). Just personal preference, though. If you camp too much, I'll just swap to a reflector and beat your camp.

Metaknight and Ness gimmicks aren't zoning, it's spacing. Ness isn't a zoner, he just has good projectiles to open you up. PK Flash USED to be a finishing move reserved pretty much only for edgeguarding, because ness has a risky recovery and takes a huge risk intercepting people.

There really aren't many characters i'd call zoners in smash. Rosalina is probably the closest thing to one, Duck Hunt Dog would probably be one if he had just a little more risk to his spammy abilities.

I don't think its exclusive to smash, but definitely more prominent than other games. If we can consider Zoners the "control" or magey chars a good analogue would be TCGs like hearthstone and MTG (mostly standard format). Both of these communities whine when control decks are strong. MTG standard has been an aggro fest for the last few blocks. Idk its frustrarimg to me as a fan of these types of styles.

It's because in other games, the "zoner" or "spacing" style of gameplay is just way easier to identify. Even if it's actually HARDER to deal with in other games, it feels less annoying because the strengths and weaknesses are better drawn out.

In smash, it's frustrating to deal with "zoners" because they aren't really zoners. They're just characters with the option to spam projectiles.

 

[BeastKiller6ixx]

Something I've noticed in my journey through competitive Smash (which I began only a few weeks ago) is that the entire scene pretty much unequivocally hates any type of character that isn't 100% rushdown. I hear people slagging on Duck Hunt for using projectiles when using projectiles is the entire point of the character. The word "camp" and all its derivatives are practically slurs: characters are hated for being campy, stages are banned for promoting camping. People freak out if a match lasts longer than 2 minutes and start screaming "CAMPY" at the top of their lungs.

I don't get it. I play traditional fighters as well as Smash, and in all fighters the two most common types of characters are rushdowners, who simply run up to the opponent's face and wail on them until they can pressure their way through (such as Captain Falcon or Fox), and zoners, who either use projectiles (Duck Hunt) or well-spaced attacks (Marth, etc.) to fish for openings. The thing is, the Smash scene seems to hate any character that isn't pure 100% unadultered RTSD (Rush That S*** Down). I can understand disliking characters that space and play keepaway, but people act like the reliance characters like Duck Hunt, Villager, Rosalina or whoever have on keepaway is a fundamental character flaw, and not simply the intentional playstyle of that character...? I don't get it. I really don't.

I mean, damn. If I showed some people around here footage of Rachel, Nu, or Litchi in Blazblue I have a feeling some heads would explode. God forbid if I show some Immaterial and Missing Power where every character is campier than Duck Hunt because they have three dedicated buttons to projectiles and projectile camping is one of the fundamental parts of the game.

It's really simple actually. It's basically that you're rewarded for playing defensive as opposed to offensive.

Defensive players to no risk while offensive players take all the risk.

So since those players are taking risk don't you think there should be a higher reward when opposed to those who don't?

Simply put, the game doesn't reward offensive players when it should. But now that the wii u ver is out, I think offensive players will be able to do what they want to do easier and more often and that strictly defensive play isn't something you'll see at higher levels.

I actually ran into a guy spam rolling last night on the wii u. Doesn't really work when I have a controller in my hand and the online is more stable.

The initial gripes were from 3ds controls and the circle pad. So I think that everything about the 3ds ver will change in the Wii u.

 

[Raijinken]

Metaknight and Ness gimmicks aren't zoning, it's spacing. Ness isn't a zoner, he just has good projectiles to open you up. PK Flash USED to be a finishing move reserved pretty much only for edgeguarding, because ness has a risky recovery and takes a huge risk intercepting people.

There really aren't many characters i'd call zoners in smash. Rosalina is probably the closest thing to one, Duck Hunt Dog would probably be one if he had just a little more risk to his spammy abilities.

Thanks for clearing that up. I've always used "zoning" and "spacing" interchangeably, I'll try to correct that for consistency.

 

[PrimeTF]

This is just an example of how a horribly unbalanced game can physically damage your fanbase. They develop some sort of supergod complex just because they know how to do ONE bull**** move that no one else has. Not that the nature of Smash games isn't bull**** on it's own, but it's only bull**** when only one character has it.

YES, WE GET IT. YOU CAN SHINE. WHOOP DI ****ING DO.

Edit: I actually think that the Melee community is actually a minority compared to other Smash games. Smash 4 is more accessible and more fun to play, but Melee is only driven so far 15 years because of the PLAYERS and they're very vocal on social media so that they give you the ILLUSION that they're a majority.

And yes, those particular people are the kind that refuse to accept defeat, so they use whatever bull**** they had. So when you beat them, they get insanely angry because it shows them that they are fraudulent and refuse to adapt.

 

[CAUP]

PrimeTF "When you beat them"

You sound like me when I was younger when I thought everything was some competition. Smash 4 and Melee aren't two sports teams or two groups of seperate people who hate each other. Most Melee fans are completely oblivious of smash 4, simply holding their personal opinion of it from their experience. The same for smash 4 players on melee. The two can coexist and no game has to be better.

 

[PrimeTF]

I'm not saying playing across games. I'm saying when you beat someone using cheap tactics and they call it bull****. Cheap is Melee's middle name, so who are these "Melee" guys complaining about when they play the most dishonest characters? It's like they don't like the idea of losing, so they play a cheap character, and when they get beat, they do nothing but John.

 

[ARGHETH]

Wow, a two year necro. How'd you even find this thread?
Also, when did Melee even get into the conversation?

 

[Nathan Richardson]

Wow, a two year necro. How'd you even find this thread?
Also, when did Melee even get into the conversation?

I agree this thread is TWO YEARS OLD wtf?!?
Also Melee was mentioned all the way at the beginning of the topic as the reason for the bias against zoners. Heck look up page one and you'll see it...

 

[PrimeTF]

I'm slowly realizing that I ****ing hate Melee. **** this game, **** everything about it, and **** your nostalgia

 

[Baby_Sneak]

I'm slowly realizing that I ****ing hate Melee. **** this game, **** everything about it, and **** your nostalgia

If you're gonna vent, make it productive. Do some push-ups, or get a outlet.

This isn't productive nor helpful.

 

[L9999]

Not to be rude but why is this thread still up?

 

[Nathan Richardson]

Not to be rude but why is this thread still up?

No clue, someone necroed this from two years back. Imo it should be locked because of how loaded such a question is and how it can scapegoat other people to take blame. The topic never should've come up.

 

[Glitchy_]

I guess it depends on what your cummunity is like....
If you have a For Glory - like community, where Projectiles, Edge-Guarding and top tiers are considered cheap, it'll be hard to make them accept zoning characters because they "play for fun".

On the other hand you have the communitys that "play to win".
This is the midset i prefer because it's perfectly fine to use top tiers, grab more than once a match and camp.

I recomment beating everyone untill they learn how to counter your char or pick a zoner up themselfes.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Yeah. This thread got nowhere fast.

2 years later, the meta game isn't very campy and the campyness that does happen is usually exciting.

Might as well lock this.

No one was going to change any opinions on this anyways.

 

[Nathan Richardson]

True but how do we bring this to the admin's attention?
'Um sorry to bug you but this thread is highly controversial, is two years old, and someone necroed it to start an argument. Can you lock it?'
I don't think it works that way.

 

[Wintermelon43]

You could report any post on here and say in the box "This post was Necrored by somebody and is controversial, please close" or something like that