Why not make a skill level option?

[LancerStaff]

PS:

I heard Sakurai is doing all the balancing again himself.....

No joke...is this true?

It's true. Just Google it and it'll come up.

 

[stan423321]

PS:

I heard Sakurai is doing all the balancing again himself.....

No joke...is this true?

Yes and no. He has confirmed he's personally inputting the data, but this is not necessarily "self-balancing" as we have seen in Brawl, where he has inputted that data based solely on his own assumptions about stuff being over- and underpowered. It is highly probable that he's listening to some alternative opinions this time.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

This doesn't really make sense, and I think a lot of people get confused over what skill is. Let me define skill:

Skill is whatever qualities internal to an individual allow that individual to succeed at a particular activity. In the context of a competitive game, skill is what makes one player win and one player lose on a predictable basis.

Think about what that actually means for how skill plays out in Melee vs Brawl. Both Melee vs Brawl have a similar level of consistent winners and losers. The tournament scenes for both games are such strong proof of this that I don't think the question is up for debate. Therefore, by definition, both require the same amount of skill. It could very well be that Melee skill and Brawl skill are not the same skill, but it is just nothing but a defiance of what the word skill actually means to suggest that either set of game mechanics favors skill itself more or less. This very topic's suggestion is really to offer a set of game modes that offer a variety of mechanics, all of which hypothetically would equally favor skill. Since none of them are necessarily superior to the others for competitive purposes, the only real outcome of including such options would be to splinter the community as we couldn't agree on which settings to use and all pushed for what we as individuals found fun. Even worse, since the skills required on different settings wouldn't be the same, crossover between players who prefer different mechanics would be ugly as one player may be a more skilled player in one set of mechanics but less skilled in another, leading to constant challenges of the legitimacy of wins because a player "would have won" under their preferred mechanics. This is before we even get into the other design problems that including a lot of options includes such as poor balance; if you try to design your characters to work under 10 different sets of mechanics, how balanced can you really expect them to be under any one of them?

As a competitive community, we are about pursuing excellence in the games we play, not about designing games. No, more options are NOT better; in fact, we should support there being as few options as possible. This is probably counter-intuitive to you, but our goals as competitive players necessarily mean that we're always only going to use one set of options, and our "loss" in terms of what we can test in the game is the set of game mechanics contained within the options we don't use. By including fewer options, we lose less. For casual play, options are great since they allow for all sorts of self-selected variety based on preference, but this is what a real difference between what's good for casual and competitive play looks like. In the past, Sakurai has taken a road of wise compromise by including alternate modes very clearly shown not to be serious ("special Brawl") and including precisely as many variables in gameplay rules as are needed to make the game decent for everyone but to maintain a good level of standardization (item switches, time/stock/coin, etc.). I look forward to it being like this again in the new game.

I think most people know what skill is, even if deep down. I think they just fail at articulating what they really mean. It's not that one mode would require more skill and one less, it's that one would be more fun for competitive play, while the other would be more fun for less competitive play. A game that discourages approaching the way Brawl does is less fun to play and watch competitively. This is of course an opinion, but one that while I don't have any good statistics around many people seem to share.

As for less options being good for competitive play, that is certainly true to an extent. However it is far from being completely true. After all isn't choice of game just another one of these options? Could you imagine if there was only one game that was played competitively? I see nothing wrong with having a mode more conducive to competitive play that has few options. This option itself probably wouldn't present much of a dilemma for competitive players as most of them would flock to this mode, not unlike how many still remain loyal to Melee. Sure that created a significant divide in the community, but I believe that is primarily because the less competitive option was newer. If Melee had come out later I suspect competitive play would have almost completely switched to the new game. Or at least such would be the case if it weren't for the stigma of having such a downgrade in amount of content.

The idea behind this thread is likely not a bad one, it's just likely way more work then the poster realized. Maybe if they weren't already making 2 games, this would be more feasible, but there is no way they are effectively making 4 games.

 

[D-idara]

This wouldn't create as big a rift as some of you are implying. The vast majority of competitive players will use settings akin to that of Melee, and almost every major tournament will be run as such. The casual and non-competitive players will mostly use the default settings, and since the two camps rarely play against each other, there's no reason to be upset. It's a win-win because both parties get to play how they want. You guys are kidding yourselves if you think the rift will disappear once Smash 4 is released, so that argument against this idea is shaky at best.

As much as I love insulting Melee tourneyfags, I want the two sides of the fanbase to get along, we can get a game with competitive depth without having one song per-stage and lots of annoying clone characters.

 

[pitthekit]

... "Melee tards" never wanted clone characters and want more stages to be legal that are stage hazard free.

Like project m.

 

[SKM_NeoN]

As much as I love insulting Melee tourney***s, I want the two sides of the fanbase to get along, we can get a game with competitive depth without having one song per-stage and lots of annoying clone characters.

A lot of Melee stages had more than one song (don't know why that matters but whatever). You'll never get along with "tourney***s" with that attitude, or anyone else for that matter, so your post comes off as hilariously ironic.

 

[D-idara]

... "Melee tards" never wanted clone characters and want more stages to be legal that are stage hazard free.

Like project m.

Yeah, because Project M didn't completely butcher Green Hill Zone and turned most of the stages into Battlefield clones. Stage hazards make gameplay interesting and fun. You strip the game of all its life and personality when you remove both stage hazards and items, especially Final Smashes (Supermoves are the mark of any good fighting game). Content should be as important as actual gameplay on a game like Smash, if the game doesn't have enough content, it'll suck, we need tons of music, trophies, creative, fun stages and other fun stuff, not milimetric-input techs.

 

[Jaedrik]

As much as I love insulting Melee tourney***s, I want the two sides of the fanbase to get along, we can get a game with competitive depth without having one song per-stage and lots of annoying clone characters.

Coming from my perspective, this statement is a near complete turn-around. I commend you if it is so.

Yeah, because Project M didn't completely butcher Green Hill Zone and turned most of the stages into Battlefield clones. Stage hazards make gameplay interesting and fun. You strip the game of all its life and personality when you remove both stage hazards and items, especially Final Smashes (Supermoves are the mark of any good fighting game). Content should be as important as actual gameplay on a game like Smash, if the game doesn't have enough content, it'll suck, we need tons of music, trophies, creative, fun stages and other fun stuff, not milimetric-input techs.

Why do you make such statements when you know that fun is a completely and absolutely subjective quality of a thing, as well as interesting? Personality too. Such statements as absolutes are silly methinks.

 

[JediLink]

Yeah, because Project M didn't completely butcher Green Hill Zone and turned most of the stages into Battlefield clones. Stage hazards make gameplay interesting and fun. You strip the game of all its life and personality when you remove both stage hazards and items, especially Final Smashes (Supermoves are the mark of any good fighting game). Content should be as important as actual gameplay on a game like Smash, if the game doesn't have enough content, it'll suck, we need tons of music, trophies, creative, fun stages and other fun stuff, not milimetric-input techs.

Christ on a bike, D-idara, this is a forum for competitive Smash players. Now, you've already made it very clear that you have no interest in the competitive scene, and that's fine, but for the love of God, stop trying to start stupid arguments.

 

[D-idara]

Christ on a bike, D-idara, this is a forum for competitive Smash players. Now, you've already made it very clear that you have no interest in the competitive scene, and that's fine, but for the love of God, stop trying to start stupid arguments.

I think Smashboards has evolved beyond that, it's more of a forum for Smash players, the competitives and the hardcore gamers that aren't really interested in the competitive scene (You know, those people you keep calling 'casuals').

And I've also met competitive players that agree with me on Project M butchering the stages.

 

[JediLink]

And I've also met competitive players that agree with me on Project M butchering the stages.

I can accept that.

That doesn't excuse calling people tourneyfags though.

 

[D-idara]

I can accept that.

That doesn't excuse calling people tourney***s though.

Well, Melee Diehards means the same thing and it's a little less offensive, but seriously, part of the fun of stage hazards is adapting to them and playing around them, which requires practice and skill, I don't see why a stage having even minor hazards prevents it from being tournament-viable. Just imagine how boring Fire Emblem would be if all the maps were flat 'for the sake of strategy'...no, the game encourages you to build your strategy around those obstacles so you can adapt...of course things like Spear Pillar won't ever be tournament-viable, but I've seen many tournament players with a 'If it's not Battlefield, it's unfair' mentaility, and that seriously hurts the metagame.

 

[Vkrm]

Well, Melee Diehards means the same thing and it's a little less offensive, but seriously, part of the fun of stage hazards is adapting to them and playing around them, which requires practice and skill, I don't see why a stage having even minor hazards prevents it from being tournament-viable. Just imagine how boring Fire Emblem would be if all the maps were flat 'for the sake of strategy'...no, the game encourages you to build your strategy around those obstacles so you can adapt...of course things like Spear Pillar won't ever be tournament-viable, but I've seen many tournament players with a 'If it's not Battlefield, it's unfair' mentaility, and that seriously hurts the metagame.

Most stage hazards emphasize luck over everything else. Even the ones that aren't random should be banned assuming they force players into a bad spot or they force players to surrender an advantageous position. These types of stages do far more harm than anything else.

 

[D-idara]

Most stage hazards emphasize luck over everything else. Even the ones that aren't random should be banned assuming they force players into a bad spot or they force players to surrender an advantageous position. These types of stages do far more harm than anything else.

Oh, the horror! They force players to adapt and overcome disadvantages on a match!

 

[Jaedrik]

Oh, the horror! They force players to adapt and overcome disadvantages on a match!

Luck is not competitive. But I do agree somewhat after watching Capps rant and that one huge post about how Mario Bros should be tourney legal. Don't think all competitive people think that way though, that's what you seem to imply.

You have yet to respond to my other posts, too. I just want to point that out to everyone so they know.

 

[pitthekit]

Luck is not competitive. But I do agree somewhat after watching Capps rant and that one huge post about how Mario Bros should be tourney legal. Don't think all competitive people think that way though, that's what you seem to imply.

You have yet to respond to my other posts, too. I just want to point that out to everyone so they know.

Why won't senpai d-idara notice MonK4!

If it makes you feel better I read your posts.

 

[mimgrim]

Luck is not competitive. But I do agree somewhat after watching Capps rant and that one huge post about how Mario Bros should be tourney legal. Don't think all competitive people think that way though, that's what you seem to imply.

You have yet to respond to my other posts, too. I just want to point that out to everyone so they know.

I presume you are implying me here as well.

In my case, I just didn't see any worth in replying to that kind of a post.

 

[Jaedrik]

I presume you are implying me here as well.

In my case, I just didn't see any worth in replying to that kind of a post.

Not in this particular instance, no, it was not my intention. I would have hinted at you otherwise.
I just. . . there is no logical reason to not allow a skill option.

 

[mimgrim]

Not in this particular instance, no, it was not my intention. I would have hinted at you otherwise.
I just. . . there is no logical reason to not allow a skill option.

I believe there are logical reasons not to. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

One person's logic is another person's crazy.

 

[Jaedrik]

I believe there are logical reasons not to. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there.

One person's logic is another person's crazy.

Well, I guess that's our fundamental difference. I firmly believe that logic is linear, and there is always an absolutely right answer to all questions, and that humans can know the truth.
That being said, I didn't say I couldn't see it. What I believe I did was demonstrate, using my intellect, that there are an array of reasons to support the choice, where my suspicions come in is where I get cynical and start believing things like you and D-idara simply disregard the post with that--what I believe to be--relativist, almost Russeau-like, excuse. I did assume you two had logical responses, which is why I want your responses with the reasoning, so that if it turns out I'm wrong I will know all the sooner, but I try and impose a rigorous standard on explanations, or I assume that you two will see the reasoning I have put forward and judge it truly as immutable truth, but I cannot be certain which I want. I could see it, if it is there and the path to it is made clear to me, which is what I was hoping you would do. To do that, you'd have to address my reasoning and demonstrate why what I have set forth is faulty, naturally you'd need to reply. I understand completely if neither of you care much to respond or don't have the fervency I do--we all have our different passions.

 

[mimgrim]

Well, I guess that's our fundamental difference. I firmly believe that logic is linear, and there is always an absolutely right answer to all questions, and that humans can know the truth.
That being said, I didn't say I couldn't see it. What I believe I did was demonstrate, using my intellect, that there are an array of reasons to support the choice, where my suspicions come in is where I get cynical and start believing things like you and D-idara simply disregard the post with that--what I believe to be--relativist, almost Russeau-like, excuse. I did assume you two had logical responses, which is why I want your responses with the reasoning, so that if it turns out I'm wrong I will know all the sooner, but I try and impose a rigorous standard on explanations, or I assume that you two will see the reasoning I have put forward and judge it truly as immutable truth, but I cannot be certain which I want. I could see it, if it is there and the path to it is made clear to me, which is what I was hoping you would do. To do that, you'd have to address my reasoning and demonstrate why what I have set forth is faulty, naturally you'd need to reply. I understand completely if neither of you care much to respond or don't have the fervency I do--we all have our different passions.

Nah, your post just confused me which was why I didn't find it worth replying to.

Trying to demonstrate your logic is fine and dandy, but that post came across, to me anyway, as a way of you trying to demonstrate your superiority. And I simply don't like those kinds of things and chose not to reply to those kinds of posts.

 

[Jaedrik]

Nah, your post just confused me which was why I didn't find it worth replying to.

Trying to demonstrate your logic is fine and dandy, but that post came across, to me anyway, as a way of you trying to demonstrate your superiority. And I simply don't like those kinds of things and chose not to reply to those kinds of posts.

I commend that you are a good man in that you simply do not reply to posts you see as arrogant.
But I assure you that was not my intention at all. I don't want to be superior, I want to know the truth, and I want others to know the truth. If I am proved to be in grave error, then I will gladly change my beliefs.

 

[pitthekit]

Man reading mimgrim and MonK4 made me remember to not judge.

I am okay with people trying to be superior than me- they most likely are.
I listen to everyone's post even if it may seem dumb... It could have a cryptic meaning or be a misunderstanding..

Mankind needs to make a technology that allows us to portray our thoughts onto others without "brainwashing them"
Because expressing our thoughts through words is hard and can often be a challenge.

Most people have complex thoughts(I don't know about people with no brain ripples. )
Words are just obsolete.
In fact I don't even know if I am portraying my idea as I see it in my head.... There could be logical fallacies and other mistakes.

I hope you get the general meaning.

 

[Ulti-Bman]

Ehh...I don't like this idea. I just want to see a mastered mechanics system surpassing both Melee and Brawl, because in my opinion, both had flaws. I also don't see what new mechanics you are referring to that makes the game "play like Brawl". I think you're getting too paranoid here. So far, the mechanics for this game seem like improvements if anything. For example, the new ledge mechanics are drastically superior of those from both Melee and Brawl. THAT's what I want to see. I don't want to see "Casual" and Competitive" modes, I want to see Sakurai focus on correcting mistakes made in both games. Oh, and L-canceling is unnecessary as long as Sakurai reduces landing lag, wanting that feature to be incorporated into the game shows extreme Melee bias in my opinion, as that can be fixed without unnecessary tech skills. You act as if most casuals realize they are casuals. Adding two different mechanics sets just overcomplicate things and wastes development time, and honestly, it's both lazy and wouldn't hold a good sign to Sakurai's development skills (it implies he can't fix the mechanics himself and has to rely on old systems to make a game). In fact, your comment implies that any new mechanics are "casual", which isn't the case for several reasons. Just accept change, and believe in Sakurai. He made Melee, he made 64, he can make another good game (assuming you label Brawl as a bad game) easily, especially with Namco providing back-up. Call me "fanboy" or "Nintendrone" or whatever, but all I know is that it's easy to be optimistic when your game is in the hands of a highly-skilled developer like Sakurai. He had his reasons for making Brawl the way it was, it wasn't like he was actually trying to make it competitive, but now, Smash 4 is supposed to be a "balance of both".

 

[Jaedrik]

Man reading mimgrim and MonK4 made me remember to not judge.

I am okay with people trying to be superior than me- they most likely are.
I listen to everyone's post even if it may seem dumb... It could have a cryptic meaning or be a misunderstanding..

Mankind needs to make a technology that allows us to portray our thoughts onto others without "brainwashing them"
Because expressing our thoughts through words is hard and can often be a challenge.

Most people have complex thoughts(I don't know about people with no brain ripples. )
Words are just obsolete.
In fact I don't even know if I am portraying my idea as I see it in my head.... There could be logical fallacies and other mistakes.

I hope you get the general meaning.

Holy crap, yes.
That is the viewpoint we should all have at all times, humility and always giving others the benefit of the doubt.
. . .
We should all switch to Lojban!

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Well, Melee Diehards means the same thing and it's a little less offensive, but seriously, part of the fun of stage hazards is adapting to them and playing around them, which requires practice and skill, I don't see why a stage having even minor hazards prevents it from being tournament-viable. Just imagine how boring Fire Emblem would be if all the maps were flat 'for the sake of strategy'...no, the game encourages you to build your strategy around those obstacles so you can adapt...of course things like Spear Pillar won't ever be tournament-viable, but I've seen many tournament players with a 'If it's not Battlefield, it's unfair' mentaility, and that seriously hurts the metagame.

I'm a Melee diehard, and it doesn't mean the same thing. You're being a douche bag. Stop insulting people when it's not needed.

Anything on a stage that could kill you below 30% is far beyond an adaptable hazard. No one needs to constantly adapt to the stage, I'm trying to adapt to my opponent. Don't expect a stage hazard to even out circumstances for you if you aren't familiar with your opponent.

I get some of the things you are saying about project M's stages. Even as a competitive player I enjoy playing every stage in both Brawl and Melee and some of the remakes are a bit garbage to me personally, but they are good for competitive play so I guess it suffices.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

Also, skill level is an option. Either you learn or you don't.

 

[Jaedrik]

Well, if we want to follow the line of reasoning that options for skill differentiation is bad, then we should also homogenize all stages, items, and characters. There is absolutely no difference in this regard, they all influence mechanics and execution ability of the individual.
Here's something nearly everyone universally wants: more choices for online modes. I loved playing Basic Brawl and its silliness, but I felt it extremely limiting. I would like the ability to do 1 v 1 matches, and I know Sakurai said there'd be no leaderboards, but he hasn't ruled that particularly out, and I have great hope for Namco's online team working their classic online magic.
No, the proponents of disallowing choice will refuse to follow their logic to its natural end and stamp out all possible things that would differentiate any player. Having a 'tech' and 'no tech' option to change core mechanics is simply the extension of having unique characters and stages.

 

[JOE!]

only add Melee techs if they're simplified and much easier to do so people can focus on playing and getting better instead of doing hadoukens and shoryukens in practice mode.

Wait, what?

 

[pitthekit]

Wait, what?

You don't know how to hadouken with fox?

Meta game scrub.

 

[nessokman]

That's your wet dream.

 

[JOE!]

You don't know how to hadouken with fox?

Meta game scrub.

lol, no. The thing I quoted was a contradiction:

"I want people to get better at the game by not practicing things that make them better, but would make them better (than me)"

 

[Jaedrik]

lol, no. The thing I quoted was a contradiction:

"I want people to get better at the game by not practicing things that make them better, but would make them better (than me)"

I don't think so, he's obviously not referring to mechanical skill but rather strategic and decision making skill.

 

[JOE!]

I don't think so, he's obviously not referring to mechanical skill but rather strategic and decision making skill.

Ok, where is the line drawn with mechanical skill then?

 

[Jaedrik]

Ok, where is the line drawn with mechanical skill then?

Beats me.

 

[Eight Melodies]

You might as well make a different game.

I've never heard of any game that allows you to completely change the entire mechanics of the game.

 

[Jaedrik]

You might as well make a different game.

I've never heard of any game that allows you to completely change the entire mechanics of the game.

Well, Smash already lets you adjust the mechanics. Note the 'damage ratio' option, as well as the ability to turn items off.
Even things as minor as these are changing the game mechanics comprehensively.
I would just like more content and more possible types of play in the next Smash.

 

[Eight Melodies]

Well, Smash already lets you adjust the mechanics. Note the 'damage ratio' option, as well as the ability to turn items off.
Even things as minor as these are changing the game mechanics comprehensively.
I would just like more content and more possible types of play in the next Smash.

Well I suppose I should have added specifically on the scale that the OP suggests. I like options myself, but it should all revolve around the same base game.