Your greatest competitive concerns for Ultimate

[Frihetsanka]

That the competitive scene will resign Squad Strike to a side event instead of it being the vastly more interesting main event it already objectively appears to be.

I'd rather see players be really good with one rare character (like Raito and Duck Hunt) than decently good with three top tiers (imagine if most top players played, say, Cloud, Bayonetta, and Diddy Kong for Squad Strike in Smash 4). It's probably better if it's relegated to being side event.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

One of my greatest concerns isn't directly related to competitive play but more of a result of it. Sometimes I see people say that a character shouldn't be in Smash because they're not top tier and/or skilled players don't use them as often as others.

I often find myself asking them if they would remove Bayonetta and when they say yes I remind them she's the best in the game.

 

[Frihetsanka]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that a character should be removed because they're too weak.

 

[meleebrawler]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that a character should be removed because they're too weak.

Some Mewtwo fans had this mindset after Melee.

 

[Jakisthe]

I'd rather see players be really good with one rare character (like Raito and Duck Hunt) than decently good with three top tiers (imagine if most top players played, say, Cloud, Bayonetta, and Diddy Kong for Squad Strike in Smash 4). It's probably better if it's relegated to being side event.

I'd say that the competitive scene has plenty of space for people to get really good with more than one character (a ton of high level Smash 4 players used multiple characters), and that "just playing the top tier" is just as likely, if not moreso, with a 1v1 setup. SS opens the door for more pocket picks and rare characters to be played for specific counters in a cycle, and even if everyone does play only top tiers, there is still something like 3 times as much matchup variety compared to only top tier picks for 1v1.

 

[Frihetsanka]

I'd say that the competitive scene has plenty of space for people to get really good with more than one character (a ton of high level Smash 4 players used multiple characters)[...]

While some top players have attempted to play multiple characters, in most cases it hasn't worked all that well, with a few notable exceptions, and those who do play multiple characters often seem to play at least one fairly easy character (like Cloud). You don't really see people playing several hard characters. I think this would be the case with squad strike as well, although with Squad Strike people might not bother with hard characters at all. Why bother learning a difficult character when you only get to use it for roughly 1/3rd of the time? And even if they do, chances are they'll pick up some easy characters for the other spots. I'd rather see someone solo-main Pac-Man than playing Pac-Man/Cloud/Marth or something like that.

[...]and that "just playing the top tier" is just as likely, if not moreso, with a 1v1 setup. SS opens the door for more pocket picks and rare characters to be played for specific counters in a cycle, and even if everyone does play only top tiers, there is still something like 3 times as much matchup variety compared to only top tier picks for 1v1.

I think the net amount will be a larger % of easy top tiers and a smaller % of really good niche characters. Solo main players are more interesting in general anyway, in my opinion, with some exceptions (somehow Tweek manages to be the best Donkey Kong while also being one of the best with Bayonetta and Cloud, that's pretty impressive).

What I think will happen in 1v1: Lots of people will pick top tiers, sure, that's pretty much always the case. I also think a good amount of players will play non-top tiers though, like we've seen in Smash 4. In Squad Strike, chances are those who would've been non-top tier specialists will either not bother at all or play that one character along with two top/high tier secondaries. I think Squad Strike will be really bad for Pokémon Trainer as well, since people would have to learn five characters. Why would we want Squad Strike to be the main mode, again?

And even if that's wrong, I'd rather see someone be really good with, say, Pikachu, than decently good with Pikachu, decently good with Wario, and decently good with Dark Samus. Sure, seeing a rare character can be hype, if played well. Kameme's Mega Man was hype, but someone picking Mega Man as their 3rd character probably wouldn't be hype.

 

[Jakisthe]

Well, if someone can get really good at one character, then they would then be able to clear out people who are only good with a few characters - it's not like all 3 on a team attack at once. An amazing Shiek can still beat out an ok Diddy, and then an ok Cloud, and then an ok Bayo. Then it becomes a meta choice about how to spend your time training, and the end result is still more interesting play. There was no need to really do anything but one character in 4 - although people still did it to a degree - and so that leads to people not putting the time in elsewhere. And if there's the easy character, so what? People can just do that same thing anyway with an all singles lineup. As it stands now, there are no pros in Ultimate because the game hasn't come out yet, so it seems like a foregone conclusion to avoid what would be a vastly more interesting viewing experience just because it clashes with how it worked in the old game. I think it's jumping the gun to assume that players can only have a finite amount of skill in a game and using that as justification to avoid more variety. Plus, I don't think "it's harder for the pros" is very defensible either; I think that this just ups the skill ceiling.

I think it would be the exact opposite. I think that if there was SS, there'd be less easy top tiers and more niche. For one, a top tier would be less likely to be able to carry an entire fight, so someone couldn't use an easy character as a crutch the entire time. Yes, you could point to the example above, when I said that an amazing character can carry, but that's against someone who is only ok with the others - they'd be just as much a carry if it was an amazing Shiek vs an ok Diddy for 3 stocks too. At some point, between 2 players of equal skill, I'd say that it's not too unbelievable to think that someone loses a stock, and thus there goes their carry. For two, there would be more of a chance for unique built-in counterpicks, because people will know that they're fighting against more than one character, and don't need to have a specific counterpick carry an entire set of stocks. The meta instantly becomes deeper and goes beyond the application of a single character and where they fit into the tier list. It no longer becomes a question of "how does this one character rank" but moreso "how does this team work together".

Players would still pick top tiers in SS, sure. But they'd also pick more non top tiers, because there is less riding on any individual pick, which means more chance to experiment and pull a pocket in response to a lineup. I'd think that if someone picked PT, they'd also be assured in knowing that their opponent would need to know an extra 2 fights too (aka, the same thing that is the case with 1v1 and picking PT). Moreover, why wouldn't we want people to have to learn more characters? It's not a skill thing, since that assumes that people can only get so good, which I simply don't believe, and is a viewpoint predicated on a system which the Smash community has never been exposed to. Wouldn't it be great if people knew how to play more than just the one, and we could all wonder how they were going to construct their lineups? Aren't surprise picks super hype? Imagine that sort of selection mixup being built into the meta from the very top. This is on top of the unquestionable mixups in matchup variety too. End result: much more interesting.

The only counter-arguments seem to be based on a lot of assumptions for things we have no idea about, and that the older ways are better just because they're older - and ignores the objective facts of a greater matchup variety and deeper meta.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that a character should be removed because they're too weak.

I've seen people ironically say that an ideal Smash game would be to just leave the top ten best characters in competitive play and cut the rest so they can refocus on perfect balance.
I also saw people saying that Phoenix Wright should have been removed from MvC3 because he was low tier.

They pretty much embody the infamous "characters are just functions" line.

 

[Uffe]

All I want is enough hitstun to combo people. Brawl had like none, and then it was like Sakurai or whoever read that people wanted more hitstun, so we got it in Sm4sh. Then Bayo could combo people 0% to death, and people hated it, so it probably gave Sakurai or whoever the impression that we want less hitstun. I want enough hitstun to combo, but not over the top like Bayo.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

All I want is enough hitstun to combo people. Brawl had like none, and then it was like Sakurai or whoever read that people wanted more hitstun, so we got it in Sm4sh. Then Bayo could combo people 0% to death, and people hated it, so it probably gave Sakurai or whoever the impression that we want less hitstun. I want enough hitstun to combo, but not over the top like Bayo.

Do we have less hitstun in Ultimate? I haven't seen any mention of it.

 

[aarchak]

Do we have less hitstun in Ultimate? I haven't seen any mention of it.

I think that's because it's the same as Sm4sh. Either way, I want more hitstun than that, but currently I'm okay with what we have.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

I think that's because it's the same as Sm4sh. Either way, I want more hitstun than that, but currently I'm okay with what we have.

I don't know if having more hitstun would be a good idea anyways. The top characters would become even better as escaping combos from ZSS, Bayonetta, Ryu, Sheik, Diddy, Mario, etc. would become even more difficult.

 

[Uffe]

Do we have less hitstun in Ultimate? I haven't seen any mention of it.

I don't know, but I'm worried that the game might.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

I did a quick search and neither the wiki nor anyone doing analyses for this game mentions anything about reduced hitstun. I think your fears are unfounded.

 

[jwillenn]

All I want is enough hitstun to combo people. Brawl had like none, and then it was like Sakurai or whoever read that people wanted more hitstun, so we got it in Sm4sh. Then Bayo could combo people 0% to death, and people hated it, so it probably gave Sakurai or whoever the impression that we want less hitstun. I want enough hitstun to combo, but not over the top like Bayo.

I think Bayo caliber combos could be great for Smash, but variety is absolutely critical in my book. They should have more of them per character and for most of the cast. When it comes to that topic, I'm most intrigued by this concept of "tag" combos that uses my Directional Swap Cancelling concept, but that's for the Smash 6 wishlist thread. What I suggested they do with these extreme combos is lower the resulting damage significantly (major scaling) and explore concepts of blast zone exemption policies aka "can't kill with this combo until victim reaches a HIGH minimum % (like 130%) even though it WOULD have sent victim to the blast zone otherwise". SDI wouldn't matter at the point of Bayo-like ladders/carries because of this.

 

[Uffe]

I think Bayo caliber combos could be great for Smash, but variety is absolutely critical in my book. They should have more of them per character and for most of the cast. When it comes to that topic, I'm most intrigued by this concept of "tag" combos that uses my Directional Swap Cancelling concept, but that's for the Smash 6 wishlist thread. What I suggested they do with these extreme combos is lower the resulting damage significantly (major scaling) and explore concepts of blast zone exemption policies aka "can't kill with this combo until victim reaches a HIGH minimum % (like 130%) even though it WOULD have sent victim to the blast zone otherwise". SDI wouldn't matter at the point of Bayo-like ladders/carries because of this.

I'm not even wanting Bayo caliber combos as you put it. I am annoyed by the fact that certain characters can pull off true combos without being interrupted, and not so much because I'm on the receiving end of it, but because with my main, Ness, not even the d-throw > fair > fair combo is cutting it these days. Like, you can't mix it up on certain characters. For example, if you try to d-throw > fair > uair against Ganondorf, all he has to do is uair, because his uair comes out before Ness'. Or if you try to combo Luigi with d-throw > fair > fair, he can just nair out of it. Some characters have these combo breakers, and it's annoying. Being able to land different combos on the fly other than the typical bread and butter is cool with Ness, but they're either situational, or the other player isn't DIing properly.

 

[Kalomaze]

I think Bayo caliber combos could be great for Smash, but variety is absolutely critical in my book. They should have more of them per character and for most of the cast. When it comes to that topic, I'm most intrigued by this concept of "tag" combos that uses my Directional Swap Cancelling concept, but that's for the Smash 6 wishlist thread. What I suggested they do with these extreme combos is lower the resulting damage significantly (major scaling) and explore concepts of blast zone exemption policies aka "can't kill with this combo until victim reaches a HIGH minimum % (like 130%) even though it WOULD have sent victim to the blast zone otherwise". SDI wouldn't matter at the point of Bayo-like ladders/carries because of this.

these kind of combos have noplace in the game, not because of imbalance, but combos like these just aren't fun at all to deal with or to use really.

 

[TheFacelessOne]

Sakurai shook his head at the Bayonetta combos during the E3 tournament, so nerfs are probably incoming. /SakuraiTranslator

More I think about it, the more I think Sakurai didn't like the booing itself. Don't get me wrong, with how he treated meta knight and zss in the last game, his development team definitely will look into the ladder combo. Thing is respect is HUGELY ingrained in Japanese culture and he just witnessed a crowd of people booing someone over a video game.

Main concerns are as follows:

-Balance: Really interested in how the game will be balanced this time around

-The Community: I'll be honest, as someone who wants to get into the competitive side, things like Evo 2018, Bayonetta hate, and a couple... less prominent moments don't reflect well on the community.

 

[Makotoa]

Honestly I think the game will be well balanced at the start of its life span. The biggest threat, in my opinion, is the one that threw smash 4 for a loop, the DLC.

How often did you hear the term pay to win after Cloud and Bayo came out?

There's no doubt in my mind that they were made to be overpowered on purpose to generate hype and sales. While they did eventually nerf both characters, obviously many people believe it wasn't nearly enough lol.
With that said, I think the game will be generally fine competitively, until they start rolling out the inevitable paid DLC again.

 

[kylexv]

Obviously I'm concerned about the balancing of a 74+ character roster.

But I'm confident Sakurai and his team can make it work.

 

[Tollhouse]

Obviously I'm concerned about the balancing of a 74+ character roster.

But I'm confident Sakurai and his team can make it work.

I mean if you look at smash 4, it has the biggest roster and the most competitively viable characters than any other smash game released. And mind you, they were making a 3DS version of this game at the same time. I don't worry about the balancing getting worse the more characters added because it's always improved with every new smash game. I'm more concerned with how they balance the few ridiculous characters like Bayonetta than the roster as a whole. Out of all the returning vets, I look forward to seeing Bayonetta's final changes the most when the game releases.

 

[AmuroRed]

Can we talk about the inability to freaking run past people?? I could maybe understand preventing people from running a shielded opponent, but simply not at all?? And I know people are saying this is a glitch but that has never been confirmed to my knowledge. This might be a feature that is here to stay.

 

[Necro'lic]

Can we talk about the inability to freaking run past people?? I could maybe understand preventing people from running a shielded opponent, but simply not at all?? And I know people are saying this is a glitch but that has never been confirmed to my knowledge. This might be a feature that is here to stay.

Super tired, so I'll make this brief. I'm fine with this change. It makes dash attacks, which most of the time do crossup, far more useful. It also gives some power back to the defensive game considering the nerf to shields. But remember that you can always run and tilt immediately to shield pressure.

 

[Makotoa]

Super tired, so I'll make this brief. I'm fine with this change. It makes dash attacks, which most of the time do crossup, far more useful. It also gives some power back to the defensive game considering the nerf to shields. But remember that you can always run and tilt immediately to shield pressure.

now that I think about it, we were given a whole pool of new attack options out of dash now, so perhaps they took away the ability to dash through an opponent as a counterbalance. And it's not as if we can't get behind the opponent at all anymore, rolling behind them still works right?

 

[Necro'lic]

I'm back again and I'm well rested.

My biggest concern will pretty much always be balance issues. In an ideal world, every character can, if played at the top level, be viable for winning an average tourney. Obviously you want to get as close to that ideal as possible. After Smash 4's patch notes, I have little faith in the balance team at this point to get things right or even have them steering in a good direction, especially when they seem to go off of For Glory of all things. It's gotten to the point where my stupid, dumb ass could probably balance the game better than them.

For an example I just came up with: priority on moves. Here's some changes I would definitely have for many reasons, and what's notable is Ultimate actually does one of these:

1. Priority on a move is separated from damage
2. Priority is on a scale of 0 to maybe 7 or 8. 0 is transcendent priority
3. Every move gets its own priority for balancing purposes (faster moves generally get less, stronger moves get more with some exceptions)
4. If same priority hits, clang happens on ground, and in air, both get hit
5. If same priority happens from ground to air, both get hit normally
6. When clang happens, both characters are inactive for the same amount of time, regardless of percent or move used
7. If higher priority meets lower priority, both on ground and in air, higher priority is unaffected, but lower priority still goes through with far less knockback , hitstun, and damage
8. Disjointed hitboxes cannot trade via conditions in #7 at any point

The overall effect of these changes not only gives more variety to how moves can be balanced, but is a sort of self-balancing system of sorts where disjoints are kept in check far more and lower priority based characters are not completely shafted. The power of disjoints then comes from still technically winning in a same priority trade only in air to air combat, but you can then make these disjointed moves less viable for air to air combat at your leisure. It involves a lot less conditional things to worry about.

But in terms of character balance, the overall idea is that short range characters have higher than average priority, disjointed characters have very low priority, fast characters have very low priority, and slow characters have very high priority. This general outline will also make heavies and generally slow and close range characters like Zelda and Kirby more viable just by virtue of the systems in place, while fast and heavy disjointed characters like Fox and Marth who have historically been very good in almost all installments will be hurt quite a bit, but not completely out of the picture since you can still trade with lower priority to get out of combos and still space optimally and win decisively in aerial combat with disjoints.

This was just ONE idea of mine out of many for a potentially better system of how to balance the game easier. It is very complicated, but to the general player, all they have to know is the priority number and how that works with the character in general, and you can easily show them this in a tutorial or in training mode when they look up a specific move or something. I know it's not the greatest idea ever, but it's far better than just keeping things like they are in exchange for making things harder to balance than they have to be.