Why Super Smash Bros. Wii U/3DS Could Become the Most "Competitive" Smash Yet

[smashmachine]

Or reduce landing lag so that L-cancelling isn't necessary, there, fixed.

it's not like any amount of changes would actually please you anyway, seeing as you can't take a loss without ragequitting

 

[pitthekit]

it's not like any amount of changes would actually please you anyway, seeing as you can't take a loss without ragequitting

For those who do not know what he is referring too-

Go to "why do people disagree with tech skill"<--- it is in smash 4 general discussion wii u...
Page 23

 

[Souless_shadow]

So far this game looks like it will be very good. I do believe that the speed being in between Melee and Brawl will make it perfect for competitive play. Even if it does end up not being competitive I'm still gonna play the s**t out of it.

 

[DaDavid]

I truly didn't mean it to sound like that.

I understand that, and I would've quoted his response and tried to explain to him instead, but I've been here and mere two months and already know he's in the "can't/won't" listen category most of the time.

 

[guedes the brawler]

i think a better comparison is smash 64 and Melee.

64 had Z-canceling: 1005 of the lag is cancelled
Melee had L-cancelling: 50% of the lag is cancelled

If we analyse these mechanics ALONE, it's clear Smash 64 is superior... but there is myriad of other things in both games, both from the tight competitive PoV and the broader "casual" PoV... and that's not even considering Single-player things, or things that affect everyone (4 specials instead of 3, anyone?)

 

[Dark Phazon]

There is only so much patching can fix also only so much they are willing to patch.

 

[Ulti-Bman]

That's just silly. Tier lists do not force anyone to play any specific character(s). The players are the ones who reduce the competitiveness of a game by picking all the "high tier" characters without bothering to verify for themselves whether or not the list is accurate, either because they don't know enough about the game when they choose a character, or they're not confident enough in their abilities to warrant the kind of expression that I assume you're talking about, etc. etc.

Precisely. That's exactly why I think having more balanced character will encourage more players to choose whoever they want.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

Don't hold your breath. If character balance is a deciding factor on how competitive a game is project m is the most competitive game in the series, and there is literally a zero % chance of smash 4 being in the same league.

Without patches, I'm going to have to be negative and agree with this.

 

[PillsBuryDopeBoy]

I believe Sakurai and co realized what they did wrong with brawl, so smash 4 could totally be on par with melee and ssb64.

So far this game looks like it will be very good. I do believe that the speed being in between Melee and Brawl will make it perfect for competitive play. Even if it does end up not being competitive I'm still gonna play the s**t out of it.

I love your signature man. Persona <3

 

[Dark Phazon]

Precisely. That's exactly why I think having more balanced character will encourage more players to choose whoever they want.

If the balance is way superior to other smashes and thr online is way superior to brawls and the gameplay is alot more fun to me than brawls then the game imo will surpass melee and brawl reguardless of what characters do or dont make it in.

EDIT: RealTalk

 

[CroonerMike]

No, because it wont be like Melee. Game should be liek no items, fox only, and battlefield/final destination only. Smash 4 has too many items, too many none battlefield stages, and not enough fox characterz. Smash 4 is an instant fail.

In all seriousness, I have high hopes for this game, and I hope it's not like Melee and Brawl...

 

[J1NG]

That actually would be interesting, almost like CvS2.

If Smash happens to feature a crew battle mode, it could become relevant.
CvS2 is a pretty good example in that case, but I think the whole bans thing is probably closer to League of Legends. It's disappointing that more gamers aren't using their imaginations to help the games that they care about. Who knows what games could have become competitive had their players just made some of their own rules...
But I do understand that if players are going to play a certain way, they expect that method of play to be built in to the game, like no items in Smash. If such a method is not built in, it is seen as a flaw of the game, or that gamers shouldn't have to be making up for the shortcomings of developers in the first place.

 

[Souless_shadow]

I believe Sakurai and co realized what they did wrong with brawl, so smash 4 could totally be on par with melee and ssb64.

I love your signature man. Persona <3

Thanks!

 

[D-idara]

I believe Sakurai and co realized what they did wrong with brawl, so smash 4 could totally be on par with melee and ssb64.

I love your signature man. Persona <3

I also believe he realized what he did wrong with Melee.

it's not like any amount of changes would actually please you anyway, seeing as you can't take a loss without ragequitting

For those who do not know what he is referring too-

Go to "why do people disagree with tech skill"<--- it is in smash 4 general discussion wii u...
Page 23

Dignified.

 

[Jumpman84]

I believe Sakurai and co realized what they did wrong with brawl

I also believe he realized what he did wrong with Melee.

I only hope he realizes what he did wrong with 64...

In any case, I'm sure the game will be competitive because all fighting games, by definition, are competitive games. Hopefully, it's not TOO competitive that the game is ruined for those who don't want to (or are unable to) play that way.

 

[Ulti-Bman]

In any case, I'm sure the game will be competitive because all fighting games, by definition, are competitive games. Hopefully, it's not TOO competitive that the game is ruined for those who don't want to (or are unable to) play that way.

I don't think a game can be "too competitive" (unless you are referring to absence of single-player elements). I already gave my definition of a "competitive" game, and according to my theory, a truly competitive game can be enjoyed by everyone, which is what Sakurai is aiming for. Hopefully he can reach his goal, and I am indeed optimistic about what's in store.

 

[viewtifulduck82]

Smash 4 does not need L-canceling to be competitive, it's an unnecessary tech barrier. It gives you two choices, in which one choice is always the better option. The simplest answer is to reduce landing lag so such a technique is not needed.

 

[Uffe]

First of all, this game being nothing like Melee doesn't prevent it from outdoing Melee...and Brawl IS a good game.

You're right. I should have been more clear as to who I was directing that comment towards.

 

[Vkrm]

Smash 4 does not need L-canceling to be competitive, it's an unnecessary tech barrier. It gives you two choices, in which one choice is always the better option. The simplest answer is to reduce landing lag so such a technique is not needed.

More choices means more depth right?

 

[Uffe]

i was going to say "Ness main detected", but them i saw the cons below your avatar... well, those weren't exactly fair, right?

I mained Kirby in 64 and Falcon in Melee. I just happen to like Ness. Of course if/when Falcon is announced, hopefully he'll be good. I'd like to use him again.

 

[viewtifulduck82]

More choices means more depth right?

It would mean more depth if both choices had their own unique benefits. As of now, the mechanic serves no other purpose than being a barrier

 

[Empyrean]

You shouldn't let tier lists decide who you're going to play. Ganon is low-tier garbage in Brawl, but I still use him and like him a lot regardless. Tier lists serve to show where a fighter stands relative to others based on many factors, among which are tourney results and matchups, for a particular period of time. They are by no means intended to be a guide of who to main or not.

That said, if Smash 4 turns out to have remarkable balance, then tier lists won't stabilize for many years until the metagame has grown enough. In Melee, we had a bunch of characters that towered over the rest. The spread in between each tier was more tight. In Brawl, we had one character way better than the rest (arguably two), and then a few way worse than the others. The ones in the middle were a lot closer together. In Project M, it's a completely different story. While balance is nowhere near perfect (perfect balance is nigh impossible to achieve), not a single person in the community agrees with the other over tier list placements. If Smash 4 aims for such a balance, then I think we can all agree it would be amazing.

 

[DaDavid]

It would mean more depth if both choices had their own unique benefits. As of now, the mechanic serves no other purpose than being a barrier

Exactly. People need to realize that more is not better. It's a matter of it being more but also significant. If we had an option to hold the C-Stick to charge smashes which would take as long as A+control stick to charge but would be stronger, then that makes an option obsolete. It wouldn't matter that we have both or that one is technically more difficult to pull off.

 

[Renji64]

Is everything a input barrier? Press L is tough ya know I don't even want to input Up-B to recovery anymore it is so demanding jezz i wonder if sakurai will make it so i can automaticly recover in the future

 

[DaDavid]

Is everything a input barrier? Press L is tough ya know I don't even want to input Up-B to recovery anymore it is so demanding jezz i wonder if sakurai will make it so i can automaticly recover in the future

Yes those things are totally comparable...

(The worst thing is you believe it don't you...)

 

[The Real Gamer]

This thread is way too premature... We know literally nothing about the game or how the competitive scene is gonna look.

 

[DaDavid]

This thread is way too premature... We know literally nothing about the game or how the competitive scene is gonna look.

We know essentially nothing about anything, yet this entire speculation area exists.

It's just a thing to do, and it's not as if we have nothing to discuss at all...

 

[R0Y]

Good points, especially starting with balance, 64 and Melee weren't very balanced but Meta Knight was another level.

 

[Jumpman84]

I don't think a game can be "too competitive" (unless you are referring to absence of single-player elements). I already gave my definition of a "competitive" game, and according to my theory, a truly competitive game can be enjoyed by everyone, which is what Sakurai is aiming for. Hopefully he can reach his goal, and I am indeed optimistic about what's in store.

I wasn't necessarily referring to the single player being left out. It was more along the lines of those high level tournament players who want everyone else to only play the game the way they want to play it. Those same people who take pleasure out of mercilessly destroying new Smash players in matches just to get a higher ranking on the leaderboards.

A good example of game that's too competitive is Star Craft 2. Anyone who wants to try and play the game is immediately destroyed by the pro players and thus, they cannot enjoy the game they paid 60 bucks for. Hopefully, Smash 4 is not like this and can be enjoyed by everyone.

 

[The Real Gamer]

We know essentially nothing about anything, yet this entire speculation area exists.

It's just a thing to do, and it's not as if we have nothing to discuss at all...

Notice how 90% of speculation threads are made about characters/stages/items? Unlike gameplay mechanics those are things we can actually predict.

We just don't know enough about how the game works to be making predictions like the OP is doing. This is the type of thread that would generate much more meaningful discussion after the game is initially released. Until then we might as well be picking lottery numbers.

 

[DaDavid]

Notice how 90% of speculation threads are made about characters/stages/items? Unlike gameplay mechanics those are things we can actually predict.

We just don't know enough about how the game works to be making predictions like the OP is doing. This is the type of thread that would generate much more meaningful discussion after the game is initially released. Until then we might as well be picking lottery numbers.

I don't see why speculation about gameplay mechanics are inherently less worth-while than stages/character/items/etc. It's just aspects of the game that we don't know about; nothing makes any more or less sense to spend time talking about if you ask me.

 

[popsofctown]

Getting sick and tired of the undefined term "competitive" being everywhere.

Don't use a term you can't define.

 

[Empyrean]

I myself honestly don't like the terms "competitive" and "casual". Take me for example. I have never gone to a tourney, so I don't qualify as a "competitive" player, but my skill and knowledge of the game far exceed that of a casual's. As a result, where would I fall then?

Here on Smashboards, the term "competitive" is often seen to describe the people who seek to get better at Smash, whether from tournaments of not. On the other hand, "casual" designates those who are indifferent towards the competitive aspect of the game.

 

[D-idara]

Is everything a input barrier? Press L is tough ya know I don't even want to input Up-B to recovery anymore it is so demanding jezz i wonder if sakurai will make it so i can automaticly recover in the future

The scariest part about this is that you believe that you're making a valid point.

 

[Waite]

Getting sick and tired of the undefined term "competitive" being everywhere.

Don't use a term you can't define.

My personal definition of competitive consists of a few points.

1. High skill ceiling. If a game is built around the highest levels of play, you give depth to your hardcore audience that will be playing for years (see Starcraft, Halo 1+2).

2. Balance. If characters aren't properly balanced, you'd have a game that only supports a very limited variety of playstyles which leads to two related problems: a stale metagame and a small skill gap. If there's a small skill gap, good players aren't rewarded for learning and playing the game, and aren't encouraged to continue playing competitively. Stale metagame results in a loss of longevity, and this loss of longevity means that no one wants to play your game long enough to be competitive (see Halo 4's competitive scene dropoff for an example of a lack of longevity due to poor balance).

3. Approachability. If no one wants to play your game in the first place, no one is going to like it enough to be competitive in it. This is where casual players are very important, because when they pick up the game, play it, and want to play it more, which leads to them turning into competitive players. If they don't want to be competitive, they still have a blast. This is where Smash games have an advantage over some traditional 2D fighters like Street Fighter (which generally have a pretty steep learning curve) because it's incredibly easy to pick up and play. This larger playerbase can lead to a larger competitive scene, thanks to its accessibility.

To sum it up:

Casual players get their quickly accessible fun and have a fantastic time.

Competitive players get a deep, thought-provoking metagame that they can sink their teeth into and evolve for years after the casuals have moved on and have a fantastic time.

Again, this is my personal feelings on the matter, so take it with a grain of salt, but think this is what people are talking about when they say they want a "competitive" Smash title. Hope it didn't ramble too much.

 

[DaDavid]

My personal definition of competitive consists of a few points.

1. High skill ceiling. If a game is built around the highest levels of play, you give depth to your hardcore audience that will be playing for years (see Starcraft, Halo 1+2).

2. Balance. If characters aren't properly balanced, you'd have a game that only supports a very limited variety of playstyles which leads to two related problems: a stale metagame and a small skill gap. If there's a small skill gap, good players aren't rewarded for learning and playing the game, and aren't encouraged to continue playing competitively. Stale metagame results in a loss of longevity, and this loss of longevity means that no one wants to play your game long enough to be competitive (see Halo 4's competitive scene dropoff for an example of a lack of longevity due to poor balance).

3. Approachability. If no one wants to play your game in the first place, no one is going to like it enough to be competitive in it. This is where casual players are very important, because when they pick up the game, play it, and want to play it more, which leads to them turning into competitive players. If they don't want to be competitive, they still have a blast. This is where Smash games have an advantage over some traditional 2D fighters like Street Fighter (which generally have a pretty steep learning curve) because it's incredibly easy to pick up and play. This larger playerbase can lead to a larger competitive scene, thanks to its accessibility.

To sum it up:

Casual players get "let's all play as Pichu in Lightning Mode with only bunny ears for items!" and have a fantastic time.

Competitive players get a deep, thought-provoking metagame that they can sink their teeth into and evolve for years after the casuals have moved on and have a fantastic time.

Again, this is my personal feelings on the matter, so take it with a grain of salt, but think this is what people are talking about when they say they want a "competitive" Smash title. Hope it didn't ramble too much.

I mean I was with this definition until we reached the "sum it up" part. That's an incredibly patronizing way to portray the casual fan-base.

@ Empyrean Offers a very meaningful distinction I think. There's too large a gap between casual and competitive when most people use the words.

 

[Waite]

I mean I was with this definition until we reached the "sum it up" part. That's an incredibly patronizing way to portray the casual fan-base.

@ Empyrean Offers a very meaningful distinction I think. There's too large a gap between casual and competitive when most people use the words.

I honestly didn't mean to come across as patronizing, that's just how I honestly used to play when I played casually. I'll polish my post up so it better reflects that.

 

[DaDavid]

I honestly didn't mean to come across as patronizing, that just how I honestly used to play when I played casually. I'll polish my post up so it better reflects that.

I understand. I mean those are certainly the extremes of the two, but I guess it's just important to acknowledge all the little nuanced inbetweeners.

 

[Renji64]

The scariest part about this is that you believe that you're making a valid point.

Coming from you lol i wasn't being serious but whatever you are a scrub get over it.

 

[D-idara]

Coming from you lol i wasn't being serious but whatever you are a scrub get over it.

LOL and that childish response isn't rare coming from Renji64 himself, I'm pretty sure I'm better than you because I'm looking forward to the new game, however it plays, not gonna go to Sakurai's house with pitchforks and torches once I notice that the game has decent speed and no wavedash. The fact that you have Falco as your SSB4 main with a little (Only if changed back to Melee playstyle) on your profile only goes to show how much of a blatant, raging, unable-to-move on Melee fanboy you are. Go play Melee and don't post on the SSB4 forum if you want another Melee that bad, because you're not going to get it.

And no, I'm not a scrub, I know how to L-Cancel and I do it...but I still think 'Why? What does this add to the game?' I mean, at least wavedash grants options, but there's never a situation when not L-Cancelling is good, so just reduce landing lag and kill L-Cancel, there, another unecessary input removed so the competitive community can grow faster.