Would you support per-player input buffering?

[Terotrous]

I made the first huge wall of text after reading the whole thread and responding to the direction that you had lead the thread in. I then realized you edited the OP to change the subject and responded to that. I don't have an answer to the current discussion you want to talk about, other than the fact that putting it back in the game would remove the hype stock management for crew-battles. The biggest rebuttal I can think about is that it makes some obscenely broken things easily accessible, when the only thing holding them back is the fact they are tech-skill gated.

I don't see why we can't keep the crew battle option and just move the option to the player profile. It might involve adding some other code to the player profile screen but if they can make the game save stats for Mewtwo and Roy I'm sure they can manage it.

Also as a general rule, skill gating doesn't work, because the best players will be able to do it. You see this in a lot of fighting games, where some character has stuff that seems very impractical but ultimately people find a way to make it work and then it becomes OP. Sakura's combos in Street Fighter 4 is a perfect example of this. So is Morrigan in MvsC3. If enabling the buffer causes something to be broken, it was broken already, the buffer just made it more obvious that it was a problem.

 

[Saito]

Yeah but the community reaction to absolutely everything is extremely negative. Space animal nerfs? Mass outrage! More stages considered legal? Mass outrage! Buffs for low-tier characters? Mass outrage! Boomerangs?...

The funny thing is that after these changes get implemented within a week no one cares anymore or they admit the changes were generally for the better.

Yes, but that doesn't make the change that you are proposing for the better.

If you think it's a good idea that actually needs to be considered then I suggest taking it to the PMBR themselves. That way the idea can be weighed by the people who work on this game and actually be taken as a serious suggestion that may be for the better or the worse of the game.

If it's something that is good, then we may see it in the future, if it's not right for it, then we probably won't see its return.


Since you're asking us if we support "Per player input buffering" it, I'll tell you that no I don't support it. I don't think it is for the best of this game.

 

[Soft Serve]

I don't see why we can't keep the crew battle option and just move the option to the player profile. It might involve adding some other code to the player profile screen but if they can make the game save stats for Mewtwo and Roy I'm sure they can manage it.

Also as a general rule, skill gating doesn't work, because the best players will be able to do it. You see this in a lot of fighting games, where some character has stuff that seems very impractical but ultimately people find a way to make it work and then it becomes OP. Sakura's combos in Street Fighter 4 is a perfect example of this. So is Morrigan in MvsC3. If enabling the buffer causes something to be broken, it was broken already, the buffer just made it more obvious that it was a problem.

From what I understand its impossible to do both unless there is a way to make two lever like settings from the one handicap setting. I don't know if that is feasible yet, and comparing codes like that doesn't work. Progress and breakthroughs on clone engine stuff =/= the ability to duplicate other in game features.
Skill gating definitely works, although I don't like it. The only thing holding back people from just perfect multi-shining shields as fox is skill gating, and while I don't like it, that level of play/tech hasn't been reached yet.

Why I disagree with what you bring up so much is that what we have right now isn't horrible. When something is brought up, like input buffering, and it potentially causes more problems than it solves, I don't see why we should assume that the proposed solution is better and that we should just work around the problems it brings along with it.

 

[Phaiyte]

The key to Mario Kart is that the items aren't random. In each position, there's a specific percentage chance for you to draw each item. Knowing these percentages can allow you to manipulate your race position and draw a good item when it benefits you.

Interestingly, the items in Wipeout are truly random, first place has just as good a chance to draw Quake as last place. This is actually bad for the first place racer, because it means you're not any more likely to get the useful defensive items, like bomb, mines, and shield when you're in first, you'll tend to keep getting useless stuff like rockets and missile.

It's ironic that you talk about making a fool of yourself when you don't know how Mario Kart works. There's no position in the game where you can draw both Blue Shell and Bullet. Bullet can only be gotten in 11th and 12th. Blue Shell appears in 5-8th. Lightning appears in 9th and 10th. Also, the length of time you stay in bullet is proportional to your current race position, so it's very hard to use it to zip to first. It typically gets you to 8th or so, depending on how clustered up the pack is. The main use of bullet is actually to try to dodge a lightning, which confers a huge advantage if done correctly, but good players won't immediately lightning if they see someone has the bullet.

Mario Kart is not pure luck. You're welcome to play against a room full of good players and get last all the time until you realize that there is a lot of skill going on. I encourage you to watch the video I posted of high level Mario Kart play and educate yourself on the game.

I warned you man:
You just contradicted yourself big time like you do in almost every post.
> items aren't random
> goes on about having a chance of obtaining x items

Chances of anything is luck no matter what you say. Probability is luck no matter how high you try stack the odds. The probability of getting something can be .05% and you can still get it on the first try. Conversely, you can have a 99% chance of getting something and never get it the entire match or farm session or what the fuck ever.

just shut up. for real.

 

[Terotrous]

Yes, but that doesn't make the change that you are proposing for the better.

No, the rest of what I've posted explains why this change is for the better. It just shows that the fact that the community has a kneejerk reaction to everything doesn't necessarily mean that nothing should ever change.

If you think it's a good idea that actually needs to be considered then I suggest taking it to the PMBR themselves.

I'm sure they've seen it by now.

 

[Terotrous]

From what I understand its impossible to do both unless there is a way to make two lever like settings from the one handicap setting.

You don't really need two settings. The buffering can just be on-off. 3 frames is probably fine for every character.

Why I disagree with what you bring up so much is that what we have right now isn't horrible.

First of all, I disagree with the notion that just because something isn't preposterously broken means we shouldn't fix it. Project M is still perfectly playable despite Jigglypuff being crap, despite this, I think it would be a better game if she was not crap. Changing Jigglypuff has the potential to affect the metagame, but I still think it's worth taking that chance. I'm sure the Back Room spends loads of time testing things for viability and won't release it in a completely broken state.

And secondly, you're seeing it from the perspective of someone who is already sold on Project M. There's a fairly large segment of the Smash Bros community that is not sold on the idea of Project M, and some of it is because of precisely the attitude displayed by a lot of people here.

"No one should have any input assistance because if you're not willing to grind out ATs you don't deserve to have a chance at this game. I don't find it hard, so no one should get any help".

You want to talk about people being arrogant and unwilling to reconsider their innate assumptions? Those are the people you should be looking at.

 

[NeonApophis]

Also as a general rule, skill gating doesn't work, because the best players will be able to do it. You see this in a lot of fighting games, where some character has stuff that seems very impractical but ultimately people find a way to make it work and then it becomes OP. Sakura's combos in Street Fighter 4 is a perfect example of this. So is Morrigan in MvsC3. If enabling the buffer causes something to be broken, it was broken already, the buffer just made it more obvious that it was a problem.

My point, which was clearly missed, is that execution barriers provide balance in certain aspects of the game. Some very cool and powerful techniques have the drawback of being difficult to consistently execute, which introduces an element of risk to attempting to use the technique. It's debatable whether this is good, but I think it probably fine to have some things that are limited by human execution abilities. It shouldn't be easy to do perfect multishines, but leaving that possibility open seems reasonable. Tech chasing is also another example where it obviously would be completely broken for some characters, but human reaction time limitations provide some balance. People do not have unlimited tech skill, which is why the "skill gating doesn't work" argument is bad. It's not that the buffer removes the need for practice, it's that it makes it possible to do things that humans could not do consistently without a buffer due to limitations on their reaction time and input timing precision, and thereby fundamentally changes what can be done with certain techniques and characters.

Here's a video to demonstrate my point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qubZPQkw2Hg

 

[Terotrous]

I warned you man:
You just contradicted yourself big time like you do in almost every post.
> items aren't random
> goes on about having a chance of obtaining x items

Uh, yes, it's a controllable form of Randomness. Like G&W Down B in this game. It's "Random" but you can manipulate the odds to give yourself an edge. That's very different from complete randomness. There's a lot of skill involved in manipulating the odds like that, see Pokemon or any CCG for example. They all involve a lot of randomness but are very competitive.

Chances of anything is luck no matter what you say. Probability is luck no matter how high you try stack the odds. The probability of getting something can be .05% and you can still get it on the first try. Conversely, you can have a 99% chance of getting something and never get it the entire match or farm session or what the **** ever.

That's why people play more than one game (ie, best two out of three) in a competitive setting, it effectively eliminates the impact of random chance.

It's not that the buffer removes the need for practice, it's that it makes it possible to do things that humans could not do consistently without a buffer due to limitations on their reaction time and input timing precision, and thereby fundamentally changes what can be done with certain techniques and characters.

The buffer doesn't help you with your reaction time though. With the buffer, you have to press the button even earlier than normal.

I agree that having certain aspects of the game be reaction or mindgame based is a good trait. I'm not proposing removing anything related to that, in fact I'm suggesting that these things should get MORE of a focus by virtue of tech skill being de-emphasized.

 

[Phaiyte]

Don't even try to say Jiggs is bad lol

I don't actually agree with Gdubs random hammer at all, but no one wants to change it or knows how so w/e for now.

It doesn't matter how controlled it is. A random factor is a random factor. We'd might as well start hosting street fighter tournaments with broke ass items.

 

[Terotrous]

It doesn't matter how controlled it is. A random factor is a random factor. We'd might as well start hosting street fighter tournaments with broke ass items.

Except, you know, it clearly does matter, because things like Pokemon, Yugioh, Magic, etc. are all super popular competitive games.

Feel free to go to a board for one of those games and say they involve no skill because luck is involved and see how long it takes for people to rip you apart.

 

[The_Guide]

Its still possible to play the game at a high level without techskill. Just look at Borp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COPsvyxJFKE#t=86 (Not the best example, but dig around. The guy is legit.)

 

[PillsBuryDopeBoy]

Uh, yes, it's a controllable form of Randomness. Like G&W Down B in this game. It's "Random" but you can manipulate the odds to give yourself an edge. That's very different from complete randomness. There's a lot of skill involved in manipulating the odds like that, see Pokemon or any CCG for example. They all involve a lot of randomness but are very competitive.



That's why people play more than one game (ie, best two out of three) in a competitive setting, it effectively eliminates the impact of random chance.



The buffer doesn't help you with your reaction time though. With the buffer, you have to press the button even earlier than normal.

I agree that having certain aspects of the game be reaction or mindgame based is a good trait. I'm not proposing removing anything related to that, in fact I'm suggesting that these things should get MORE of a focus by virtue of tech skill being de-emphasized.

 

[Phaiyte]

Except, you know, it clearly does matter, because things like Pokemon, Yugioh, Magic, etc. are all super popular competitive games.

Feel free to go to a board for one of those games and say they involve no skill because luck is involved and see how long it takes for people to rip you apart.

I've won pokemon card tournaments by abusing /chances/ of paralysis and sleep. Literally never lost a game in those only because my luck was ****ing awesome. I abandoned my decks that were actually good to prove exactly that point.

And, in competitive magic, literally 95% of the entire circuit uses the exact same deck every single year. Exact same deck card for card. It is boring as **** and that's why I quit that ****. Winning and losing is still nothing but probability though. I've seen some of the best players lose only because they didn't draw any mana which really sucks when your opponent is using the same deck as you and did draw some mana.

 

[Terotrous]

Its still possible to play the game at a high level without techskill. Just look at Borp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COPsvyxJFKE#t=86 (Not the best example, but dig around. The guy is legit.)

Yes it is, I already brought up a few examples of that myself. If we lowered the tech barriers, we'd have more good players like that around. How is this a bad thing?

I've won pokemon card tournaments by abusing /chances/ of paralysis and sleep. Literally never lost a game in those only because my luck was ****ing awesome. I abandoned my decks that were actually good to prove exactly that point.

I'm skeptical, but even if so, those moves have counters. Your opponents clearly weren't prepared for that type of strategy, and that's why they lost.

Similar strategies exist in Yugioh, like the Fairy Box (any attack made by the opponent has a 50% chance of being reduced to zero). This card wrecks noobs because their strategy typically revolves entirely around powerful attacking monsters with very little magic and trap support. However, at high levels of play there are plenty of ways to get around that card.

 

[The_Guide]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chl1JasCGEU#t=3397
Here's a better example of Borp doing his thing.

Seriously, just play the mental side of the game. You can do well against most players by doing this.

 

[Empyrean]

This thread is an amalgamation of double and triple posts.

 

[The_Guide]

Yes it is, I already brought up a few examples of that myself. If we lowered the tech barriers, we'd have more good players like that around. How is this a bad thing?

But they can still succeed without them. Why is it needed?

 

[NeonApophis]

The buffer doesn't help you with your reaction time though. With the buffer, you have to press the button even earlier than normal.

First off, the input timing precision point is still very important. The reaction time point was meant as an additional example of a human limitation that is important to maintain. However, buffering does help with reaction time since it creates a wider window in which your input will translate into an attack, which makes it less necessary to correctly react to differences in hitlag timing that are often important in micro-heavy technical situations. If you're not sure whether a certain attack will actually connect, whether it will hit your opponent's shield at a certain time, where exactly your opponent will be when they get hit which also changes when you experience hitlag, etc., it is harder to follow up on that attack. If you can just buffer an input that will activate as soon as your hitlag ends, you don't have to worry about any of this micro timing/spacing. A lot of this sort of stuff is important at high levels, and good players will, for example mixup the point at which their opponent enters hitlag in order to cause them to miss L-cancels (especially common with Ice Climbers in melee since their two shields gave them more options to do this sort of thing). If you understood the depth of timing/spacing situations and the importance of small timing mixups, SOME of which can be negated by buffering, you would understand why it's not that great of an idea to add a buffer.

But really, the input timing point is more important than the reaction time point made in this post. Some stuff should be really hard to do, and it isn't broken, because it is actually really hard or impossible to do for all humans. You could never do a lot the things in the TAS video I posted, even if you were willing to practice this game and develop tech skill.

 

[Terotrous]

But they can still succeed without them. Why is it needed?

Because with the use of advanced techniques you can raise the level of your game even further. Making these moves easier to perform would put these tools in the hands of more players and the global quality of play would go up.

 

[Thor]

The OP is doing a pretty terrible job of arguing his points - he should be using CSP to prove his point [it's at least better than Pokémon] - randomness occurs but it's your job as the player to overcome it, and if you didn't, you don't deserve to win. Magic the Gathering is also a good example [better than Pokémon, probably also better than CSP] but not as many people know what that is. Admittedly I'm not sure where this randomness stuff came up anyway.

A buffering system doesn't really have a reason to be banned [fire them off at me, I'll read them and consider them and either refute them or admit I hadn't seen that angle], but people more often than not need a reason to legalize something, not not ban it, so the buffering will probably stay illegal.

 

[The_Guide]

Buffering would probably enable some types of option selects. Which would inherently make it better than choosing to go without buffer.

Just throwing that out there.

 

[Terotrous]

for example mixup the point at which their opponent enters hitlag in order to cause them to miss L-cancels (especially common with Ice Climbers in melee since their two shields gave them more options to do this sort of thing). If you understood the depth of timing/spacing situations and the importance of small timing mixups, SOME of which can be negated by buffering, you would understand why it's not that great of an idea to add a buffer.

You make an interesting point with this one, but I'd want to see testing on this to determine exactly what would happen in this situation. Since the L-cancel input is always accepted immediately (you can and have to perform it during an attack), I do not believe the buffer would affect it.

But really, the input timing point is more important than the reaction time point made in this post. Some stuff should be really hard to do, and it isn't broken, because it is actually really hard or impossible to do for all humans. You could never do a lot the things in the TAS video I posted, even if you were willing to practice this game and develop tech skill.

Historically though most things that are thought to be "impossible to use in practice" tend to end up happening eventually. There was a time in MvsC3's life where it was thought that Doom's TAC infinites were purely the stuff of combo videos and could never be done in a real match, and yet now they appear with regularity. Similarly, I'm sure people thought the waveshine infinites and other such trickery could not be done consistently, yet now there are people who can do it. Never underestimate what people are capable of.

And besides, if we enable the buffer and it causes us to find some technique that's absurdly broken, we could just adjust that technique. They've already done this, in fact, Lucas had some ridiculous shield pressure stuff in earlier versions of the game, and even though it was ludicrously difficult to do in a real match it was still taken out.

Buffering would probably enable some types of option selects. Which would inherently make it better than choosing to go without buffer.

Just throwing that out there.

It's possible that it might. But it might also render some other option selects impossible, as they rely on the fact that in certain situations you will press a button but because of your current situation nothing will happen, but with buffering on that input would become buffered and you would end up performing an action.

Incidentally, I would totally accept "it might be a good idea but we'd have to test it to make sure it doesn't open some massive exploit" as a response. I agree, it would definitely need testing, but I still think it's worth looking at rather than just rejecting it out of hand.

The OP is doing a pretty terrible job of arguing his points - he should be using CSP to prove his point [it's at least better than Pokémon]

There's a million examples. All board games that involve dice, drawing cards, or any other such mechanics also work, but many of them are also considered highly competitive. As long as the randomness can be manipulated through skillful play it doesn't act as a barrier to competitiveness.

 

[Saito]

No, the rest of what I've posted explains why this change is for the better. It just shows that the fact that the community has a kneejerk reaction to everything doesn't necessarily mean that nothing should ever change.

The things you have posted haven't convinced me or a lot of the other people here.

You asked for our opinion and argued your side. Just because you couldn't change people's minds doesn't mean everyone is having a kneejerk reaction. They just don't agree with you.

I read your idea, I read your posts, I thought about it carefully with my own opinions in mind as well.
In the end, I don't think it's the best for this game.

You're pretty much insinuating that everyone is against every change that is made and using that to boost the credibility of why your decision is the "best" decision.

When I look at what the PMBR does to the characters across updates I think about the changes right there and decide if I agree with them. I review the characters before the changes and think if they needed it or not. I don't accept it blindly because it's the PMBR who made the change and I don't disagree with it instantly because they changed something.

I'm doing the same thing for your argument. I've weighed what I believe the pros and cons are and made my choice.

That doesn't mean your stance is right or wrong. You just haven't changed my mind, and I don't think you will.

 

[DrinkingFood]

If you guys stop responding seriously he won't have anyone to ***** to anymore about the game not catering to his lack of tech skill

 

[Saito]

If you guys stop responding seriously he won't have anyone to ***** to anymore about the game not catering to his lack of tech skill

Every day until we like it?

 

[Terotrous]

You're pretty much insinuating that everyone is against every change that is made and using that to boost the credibility of why your decision is the "best" decision.

Not everyone, but certainly a lot of people who would rather flame or spam rather than try to contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way. If I'm responding to your posts, it probably means you're posting something worthwhile.

That doesn't mean your stance is right or wrong. You just haven't changed my mind, and I don't think you will.

It's difficult to change people's minds through theory fighter, because there's a lot of talk about what sorts of situations could happen and what the results could be and so on, but without testing there's no way to say for sure. I think the much better option is for you to just try it out yourself and see how it plays. You can just turn input buffering on through the options and play some matches with it. I've been doing that for the last few weeks and I think it makes the game play a lot better overall. The level of tech in our matches has definitely gone up quite a lot.

 

[Thor]

I warned you man:
You just contradicted yourself big time like you do in almost every post.
> items aren't random
> goes on about having a chance of obtaining x items

Chances of anything is luck no matter what you say. Probability is luck no matter how high you try stack the odds. The probability of getting something can be .05% and you can still get it on the first try. Conversely, you can have a 99% chance of getting something and never get it the entire match or farm session or what the **** ever.

just shut up. for real.

No, you're just an idiot. If you didn't straw-man his arguments, you'd understand his point, which is that items aren't all on a big wheel and you can spin any item, but rather the game prevents you from receiving certain items in certain positions because those items would be too strong [mainly in the front]. Items aren't all luck-of-the-draw because some are inaccessible (the randomness the OP talks about is the ability to draw a joker when you've already got a Royal Flush, which can't happen in Mario Kart (no stars in 1st place)), but there is a chance of obtaining specific items in certain spots (bullet bills in last, etc.). His point is that there is strategy to obtaining items, and that you don't get all the benefits of the best items in first place as a balancing measure, not that there is not a measure of randomness at all in the game.

You miss the forest for the trees. If you learned to read for content instead of trying to make an argument based on words that weren't meant literally but instead [usually unintentionally] omitted for brevity, you'd look less stupid.

Just shut up. For real.

Buffering would probably enable some types of option selects. Which would inherently make it better than choosing to go without buffer.
Just throwing that out there.

That's not a bad thing. That's just a reason to use the buffer if it's legal. That's like saying dash-dancing enables options out of movement more than dashing, which makes it inherently better than choosing not to dash-dance (far from perfect analogy, but I think you get the point).

I'll still listen to any arguments people want to present against the buffering, the only one I've seen is "It'll make stuff broken that's hard to do too easy" but given the examples the OP's given already about why that will probably end up occurring at some point anyway.That said, I honestly don't care either way, I just don't know how many people have genuinely thought it out and I'd appreciate a dialogue about it to expand my own understanding of it. I read some older posts but they didn't say all that much. Although if Phaiyte is going to post more drivel maybe I'll just leave this thread alone. Also, about the hammer earlier, it's because no one cares to change the hammer - the fact that the judgement hammer effects have been altered suggests they could make the numbers just for kicks and make the hammer always do the same thing, but they leave it as is because it makes GnW GnW.

 

[Chevy]

I don't believe per-player input buffering is inherently bad. But it would cause a lot of backlash and confusion for tournament organizers, who now have to decide whether it's allowed or not, or just drop Project M because they don't feel like dealing with it.

Whether you like it or not, not everyone will be for the idea. If someone is good without the buffer, they will call the buffer a crutch. This isn't completely unjustified. Whether or not you think that it's a crutch that should exist isn't that relevant in the grand scheme of things.

Most mid to top-level players would not be in favor of it being tournament legal. In they're mind they've already spent the time to learn their timing properly, so why shouldn't everyone else? I can sympathize with this mindset. The game takes time to learn and play, and those that put in the effort are rewarded for it. There is potentially a big debate as to whether the physical aspect of the game is important. I think that it's an inevitable part of the game, so it should just remain as is, whether than try to hide it. And personally, I just prefer no buffer, I would rather have frame perfect control.

This options would inevitably create a divide, as you've already seen in this thread, between those against it and those for it. Divides are not good for the community. Players go back to Melee, some are just disgusted by the arguing and leave. I don't think the draw of new players would compensate for the potential loss of current players.

These reasons are why this idea is not worth the time to implement. I admit that they are taken to the extreme somewhat, but you get the point.

 

[Celestis]

You keep trying to find short cuts around learning how to wavedash. If you just do it constantly it well eventually just happen and you won't have to think about it anymore. We already have Input assist to help learn and that already makes things super easy to do. Adding back the original buffer option would just just be ridicules. Plus it would lead to players getting buffered into air dodges off the edge and falling to their deaths. There is a reason Melee and this game do not have buffer.

Just turn on input assist if you really need help with wavedashing. It makes it stupid easy no matter what character you play with it on.

 

[Terotrous]

[Option Selects] aren't a bad thing. That's just a reason to use the buffer if it's legal.

It would definitely be something they'd have to look at. If the buffer enables new option selects, it could alter the game balance.

That being said, I spent some time trying to come up with some, and I think there may not be any buffer-only option selects. The buffer works by sending your input again up to 3 frames later if you can't perform it at the time. But if the game can send the input for you, you could send the input yourself. It might make a few option selects easier to do, but it should be possible to do them without it. And I do believe it will prevent you from doing a few option selects, because sometimes the option is to do nothing.

I don't believe per-player input buffering is inherently bad. But it would cause a lot of backlash and confusion for tournament organizers, who now have to decide whether it's allowed or not, or just drop Project M because they don't feel like dealing with it.

Eh, I highly highly doubt they'd drop PM for this. There's already tons of things they have to decide upon, like "what stages are legal"? Whether to allow the buffer or not isn't really a big deal since it's just a yes / no.

Most mid to top-level players would not be in favor of it being tournament legal. In they're mind they've already spent the time to learn their timing properly, so why shouldn't everyone else? I can sympathize with this mindset. The game takes time to learn and play, and those that put in the effort are rewarded for it. There is potentially a big debate as to whether the physical aspect of the game is important. I think that it's an inevitable part of the game, so it should just remain as is, whether than try to hide it. And personally, I just prefer no buffer, I would rather have frame perfect control.

Mid level players would benefit from it too though. It doesn't just make Wavedash easier, it also makes Dacus, jump cancels, and some other techs easier. It also makes it easier for them to pick up a second character.

The only people who wouldn't benefit at all are those who are the absolute best of the best. But they're already so good they really don't have a lot to worry about. I suspect people like Mew2King would probably welcome the challenge.

This options would inevitably create a divide, as you've already seen in this thread, between those against it and those for it. Divides are not good for the community.

I actually don't think it would create a big divide for very long. First of all, Brawl already has a 10-frame buffer, and Smash 4 probably will as well, so there's a precedent for it. I also don't think it would really change the results that much. The best of the best are not only skilled at execution, they're also smart players who make good choices and they would still do well. They might be challenged a bit more, but if anything that would probably be good for the scene.

 

[Chevy]

Mid level players would benefit from it too though. It doesn't just make Wavedash easier, it also makes Dacus, jump cancels, and some other techs easier. It also makes it easier for them to pick up a second character.

The only people who wouldn't benefit at all are those who are the absolute best of the best. But they're already so good they really don't have a lot to worry about. I suspect people like Mew2King would probably welcome the challenge.

I actually don't think it would create a big divide for very long. First of all, Brawl already has a 10-frame buffer, and Smash 4 probably will as well, so there's a precedent for it. I also don't think it would really change the results that much. The best of the best are not only skilled at execution, they're also smart players who make good choices and they would still do well. They might be challenged a bit more, but if anything that would probably be good for the scene.

I would consider myself a mid-level player and I don't want it. It takes away the satisfaction of doing things properly. It's not some sort of superiority complex, anyone can pull off most ATs with a little practice; it's just intrinsically satisfying to do something marginally difficult. As stated the buffer makes execution less impressive. And while that is partially ego-feeding, for better or worse, the technical challenge is part of what the community embraces.

And I think you shot yourself in the foot with the divide argument. People will never be over Brawl, and the buffer is part of why.

 

[Terotrous]

It's not some sort of superiority complex, anyone can pull off most ATs with a little practice; it's just intrinsically satisfying to do something marginally difficult. As stated the buffer makes execution less impressive. And while that is partially ego-feeding, for better or worse, the technical challenge is part of what the community embraces.

Like I said before, I feel that any potential satisfaction you get out of doing ATs properly is negated by how totally unsatisfying it is when a match is decided by an execution error.

I also feel that removing execution barriers is good for the growth of a competitive scene in general. Most players in fighting games will continue to improve until a certain point, then they'll hit a wall and stop getting better. This happens when they reach the level where they know what they need to do to improve, but they're no longer capable of doing it. At this point they might struggle with it for a bit longer but the end result is that they tend to quit. I feel that the goal when designing a game's interface should be to minimize the gap between intentions and results.

Some people are really used to this separation, but to be honest fighting games are one of the only places where it exists. Take a look at Chess, for example. Chess has no execution barrier - Even if it's my first time playing, I can make any valid move I want, 100% of the time. Despite this, determining the optimal move is still extremely complex and as such the game has endured for centuries. Part of what keeps new people coming to the game all the time is the fact that it is extremely easy to pick up but still boasts incredible depth.

Even in video games, other competitive genres like Racing, Puzzle, Sports, FPS, and Turn-Based Strategy also tend to have far lesser execution requirements than fighting games, and it hasn't really hurt their popularity at all. If anything, it almost killed the fighting genre in the late 90s, and it was only the influx of lower execution fighters that brought it back.

Longtime fighting gamers are extremely used to the execution walls and perhaps can't imagine the games any other way, but I encourage people to try the alternative and either play this game with input buffering on or try out Divekick. Once you experience the thrill of beating someone not because they made a dumb mistake and you punished it, but rather because you backed them into a corner or perfectly read what they were going to do, it's hard to go back.

And I think you shot yourself in the foot with the divide argument. People will never be over Brawl, and the buffer is part of why.

To be totally honest I've never heard anyone complain specifically about the buffer in Brawl. The two main complaints were the removal of combos and the terrible balance. Similarly, when people talk about Smash 4, I've never heard someone say "Looks good but I hope the buffer isn't back". They say thing like "Oh good, it looks like combos are returning".

 

[PMS | Tink-er]

"Should this game be made even more accessible? What do you guys think?"
"No. Our reasons are as such ____."
"I disagree with you because this game is too hard."
"Too bad."
"But . . ."
"No."
(ad nauseum)

These arguments are incredibly circular. Terotrous, you disagree with the people you're arguing/debating/talking/chatting/&c. with/against/towards/&c. at such a fundamental level that neither side is likely to ever budge. Play the game however you like, and have all the opinions you want, but they're evidently not going anywhere. Both sides of this entire thread are so dismissive of the other's ideas that all that is being achieved is an artificial inflation of post counts. Please stop to consider how the other side views your points and realize the futility of the situation. I'm not saying you're wrong, but evidently most of the other posters think you are. I believe the title and OP of this thread (as well as the original title and OP) have both been answered at this point, and the thread has devolved further into the above snippet I self-quoted. I gather that you are earnest, but unless you can make a completely different, stronger argument which doesn't rely on theory crafting and anecdotes, all the time you spend arguing will likely be futile, as what you're arguing now is proving to be unconvincing to the other posters. I suggest you stop and come back with a stronger argument based on statistics and evidence, or you stop and save everybody (including yourself) the trouble and unnecessary passive-aggressive arguing.

 

[Terotrous]

These arguments are incredibly circular. Terotrous, you disagree with the people you're arguing/debating/talking/chatting/&c. with/against/towards/&c. at such a fundamental level that neither side is likely to ever budge.

I think there's been some decent discussion in the last page and a half or so about whether or not there could be unintended consequences to enabling it. Most of the people who were just trolling the thread left already.

Also, I'm not sure how you'd support this argument through statistics. The evidence is fairly easy to find, just watch any stream and you'll see plenty of matches decided by execution errors. You can also go to any forum for Smash Bros other than this one (sometimes even this one, but the extreme hostility from some members of the community discourages it) and find people who don't like the execution barriers in Melee and prefer Brawl / Smash 4 for that reason.

 

[The_NZA]

Also as a general rule, skill gating doesn't work, because the best players will be able to do it. You see this in a lot of fighting games, where some character has stuff that seems very impractical but ultimately people find a way to make it work and then it becomes OP. Sakura's combos in Street Fighter 4 is a perfect example of this. So is Morrigan in MvsC3. If enabling the buffer causes something to be broken, it was broken already, the buffer just made it more obvious that it was a problem.

You say that, and yet there is no character in Melee that has dominated tournament play to the point of making others irrelevant, and there is no player that has looked unbeatable with a character for the duration of a whole set. Metaknight broke brawl because he was good but also EASY at being good. By buffering everything, taking out l cancelling, and removing skill floors, I promise you that Fox will actually be closer to breaking the game than he ever has been.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

The entire flaw with this proposition is that you're looking at execution barriers as a bad thing instead of part and parcel of the game's balance and design.

Look, ATs didn't come fresh out of the design room. Sure, characters are designed and balanced with a certain playstyle in mind, and the game has certain properties that allow for certain things, but a lot of this was discovered by people, in the lab or in tournament, but by people actually playing the game. If edge-cancelling Ganon's Down-B is a good mobility option, the answer to it being difficult isn't making edge-cancelling easier, it's learning your spacing. If AGTs offstage are risky, the answer is to learn how to do them properly, not make them trivial.

This game is played by humans, even if M2K does have an affectionate nick-name to the contrary. And humans mess up. That is a huge part of the mental aspect of the game. Just turn around and look at RoM7, where Mango's Falco side-B'd off Yoshi's Story and M2K ended that match by Uair'ing Falco instead of Bairing him, thus helping Falco return to the stage and edgehog his Marth, instead of killing him.

A huge part of the risk of ATs is that you'll mess up. You know this when you decide for a complicated sequence of buttons that could result in Dash AttackFTiltUSmashFAirUpSpecialSide-B Aura Charge -> Spike, or it could result in you missing the Side and falling to your death without an Up-B offstage on your last stock where you bet it all as your opponents glides back to safety with a smirk. This is not a flaw, it is half of what makes the game challenging. Guessing right, and executing your inputs properly.

You will never be able fight as fast as you think. There will always be a next level in a fighting game this deep whether your input buffer is three frames or it's ten. What you're asking for isn't a helping hand, it's to put the game in a mode it is simply not balanced for. Difficulty of execution is a perfectly fine way of introducing a risk-reward element in design. Lucario has the potential to explode your stock, as does Lucas' shield pressure or Ike's Side-B shenanigans or a perfectly spaced Marth, but no one can be on point every stock of every match of every set of every tournament. You can only come close.

While a healthy mental aspect is necessary for a good game, you can't turn a fighting game into chess, so stop trying.

 

[Terotrous]

You say that, and yet there is no character in Melee that has dominated tournament play to the point of making others irrelevant

Uhh, yes there totally are. The top tiers render many characters redundant because they just can't compete against them. Look at Fox's matchup chart for example. If you have a matchup against Fox that's 30-70 or worse, you're irrelevant, which is close to half the cast.

A huge part of the risk of ATs is that you'll mess up. You know this when you decide for a complicated sequence of buttons that could result in Dash AttackFTiltUSmashFAirUpSpecialSide-B Aura Charge -> Spike, or it could result in you missing the Side and falling to your death.

This is really much more of a spacing issue than an execution issue. If you go for a risky offstage punish / followup, you have to make sure you aim it perfectly. Buffering doesn't make this any easier. Part of the goal of the buffer is actually to make spacing skill more important by reducing the focus on certain other aspects of the game.

Difficulty of execution is a perfectly fine way of introducing a risk-reward element in design. Lucario has the potential to explode your stock, as does Lucas' shield pressure or Ike's Side-B shenanigans or a perfectly spaced Marth, but no one can be on point every stock of every match of every set of every tournament. You can only come close.

Like I mentioned already, Lucas's ridiculous shield pressure combos were already taken out even though no one had really put them to use in a real match. Characters are generally balanced assuming they're played to their highest potential. And in virtually every game the "high execution high reward" characters end up being top tier. Melee is a fantastic example of this in action.

While a healthy mental aspect is necessary for a good game, you can't turn a fighting game into chess, so stop trying.

Divekick already comes remarkably close. This game also isn't far off.

 

[Thane of Blue Flames]

Divekick already comes remarkably close. This game also isn't far off.

You may have noticed this game has more than two buttons.

 

[Paradoxium]

Chess is only mental, smash bros is mental and physical. The physical aspect is just as important as the mental one.

 

[Terotrous]

You may have noticed this game has more than two buttons.

It does, but they have some similarities anyway. Both games are very heavily spacing and reaction-oriented, and knowing how to move about the stage effectively is very important and a bit more involved than most other fighters.

Chess is only mental, smash bros is mental and physical. The physical aspect is just as important as the mental one.

How do you determine that they're equally important? Many other games with little to no physical element are still popular, while very few games that have very little mental element are popular. I think that suggests that the mental element is at least more important than the physical one.