PLEASE NOTE THAT I ONLY SUPPORT THIS CODE IF WE HAVE CODESPACE FOR IT, AND CODESPACE FOR NECESSARY DEFENSIVE BUFFS IF NEEDED.
At the same time that you add depth, you also want the game to be approachable. This is a mechanic which a large portion of new members (read: players who are competitive now but weren't in melee, a LARGE scene which we are hoping to attract) will not be attracted too. Notice how everyone's first reaction to it is: disgust.
The same could be said for no auto sweetspot ledges, and hitstun, and lower buffer (
especially lower buffer). Every physics change that we made was a major change, and most of them were negatively received at first (I know that when my brawl friends first tried brawl+, they hated it because they couldn't attack me out of
my combos, or drop their shield and f-smash me after shielding my aerials). I really don't see how this is any different.
You can add the ultimate depth with the up b down a up down left right b start combos, but depth alone does not make a game good.
That's only depth if it does something that isn't already done. But that also seems fairly easy to do.
The appropriate balance between playability AND depth on the other hand does.
Tell that to Guilty Gear.
Its not hard to time a wiggle when you know you've exited a combo, but when your a large character in the mix of getting juggled to death and then your usually forced to jump out and AD (which when we discussed in our chat room how easily punishable that is), I don't think thats adding depth or playability.
Why are you forced to jump out?! You're not
forced to do anything. You
choose to jump out because
you don't know if it's a combo or not, because
you don't know when you're not in hitstun, which was exactly my point. For if you know that you're not in hitstun, then you know when you
should be wiggling out, you're just
not doing it, which means that you're contradicting the purpose of this code (these things only apply assuming that everyone can...do it. Even if they have to practice, they still have to actually apply these principles)
As I said before, I think its an ambitious goal, but I don't think its the right one. A large portion of the cast already breaks a string with an aerial, but not all the cast can do that. Why should we make their lives harder?
How about because mashing airdodge mindlessly should not be a guaranteed way to minimize damage? Airdodging gives you full control over your momentum (you can drift forward or back), and you get closer to the ground. Is that not the best thing you could ask for? Even if you're airdodge gets predicted, you're better of than the other scenario (get hit right after exiting hitstun), which is my biggest gripe with the system. Where's
my reward for predicting
you? I predict your airdodge and I get....a forward air, since you used that airdodge to drift to far for my uair to connect,
even though I knew exactly what you were doing.
You can say these characters can do this to escape it and that to escape it, but now they've given up their second jump and entered an air dodge and are still in a risky sitatuion.
Or you time the wiggle since you know it's not a combo.
This is my main problem with the code. Every character had an equal option to exit hitstun. It was in-discriminatory; that is, an option of equal benefit was presented to the entire cast, a rare sight indeed.
It is still in-discriminatory. It is still an option. It just takes some actual timing now (*gasp, there's
prediction involved now?!?)
However, even with this option there, the depth is already there. Combos can already be strung together. Zoning and mindgames still persist in vertical transitions (its not too hard to anticipate an air dodge).
It's not hard to anticipate airdodge, but the reward you get for predicting the airdodge is less than hitting them after the string, so it's
still a better situation for them. The vertical transition turns onto a horizontal transition, most of which cannot be combo'd from and also don't kill the opponent.
Also Dark, this is one thing which still has yet to be answered by anyone to my knowledge (or at least explicitly besides saying omgdepth, and I feel this is super important). Why does the punishment system/offense need to be buffed further? Furthermore, why does this need to be buffed further where it will explicitly benefit characters with faster air mobility and capability to string attacks?
At this point, most strings are strictly done close to the ground, most punishing whiffed attacks. Punishing an airdodge is typically the end of that string, because it sends them too far to follow up, which in turn makes airdodging the ultimate defensive option (better than all the others for most characters). This is about the risk/reward system, because the risk for having your airdodge predicted is actually less than the risk of not airdodging at all, which in my eyes is a serious flaw. To that end, it's effect on balance is a small problem (with the appropriate buffs to those who need it of course), because it goes against the principle that tumbling is
nota neutral state, and that a predicted action should be worse than no action.
But think of playing bowser in this picture vs a fox. Who is going to benefit more from this code? Now think of MK vs ganondorf. Or MK vs Falcon? The list goes on. Are we targeting the right characters by adding this code or making the disparity even worse?
None of these are a problem when you do what you're supposed to do! I play Marth in melee, I know what getting juggled with no defense below me is like (and back then I couldn't even airdodge anyway). Fox players know what it's like to get juggled by me too! I also know that brawl has answers to these that are still applicable even after the inclusion of this code. The difference is that they're only applicable
if you know what your opponent is going to do, which seems perfectly fair considering that your opponent purposefully put you in that position with the intent of limiting your options. They put you in that spot so that they could go for a mixup between strings and true combos...but mashing airdodge dramatically reduces the effectiveness of the former.
The mixup should only exist when it is possible to do a true combo
or a string. If they are only able to do a string from that position, then obviously you'll just wiggle and time your airdodge. It takes
practice but it is more than doable and
does not take away your options. All it requires is that the person being combo'd has to actually think about whether it's a combo or a string and act accordingly. Yes it is a buff to offense, but not in the sense that you're taking it. You're taking it to mean that jugglers can now juggle characters 100% of the time because they can't airdodge (which is flat out untrue). I'm taking it to mean that
mixups between strings and combos actually work, because now your opponent has to guess between the two (but
only if both are possible). For this...both players have to have knowledge of the character's combos. To escape your strings, your opponent has to know what your combo options are (and if you have any and how reliable they are in that situation). That's just a part of
matchup knowledge.
Its easy to theorycraft why this can be so ideal for depth. Its also easy to theorycraft why this is going to amplify any disparities within the character tiers. Its not exclusive. As much as this code adds, it also takes away. Think economically, cost vs benefits. In my opinion, our system now is fantastic. Do I think its worth upsetting the balance to have this (well what you would call it at least) marginal benefit? The fact that you aren't acknowledging these weaknesses is worries me as well.
I acknowledge these weaknesses, I just believe that the benefits outweigh them (cost vs benefits).
To reiterate, it is a buff to offense, but only in the sense that it punishes players who spam generic escapes when they don't know what they're getting hit by. When you predict a spotdodge or a roll, you get quite a large reward because of 2 things. You know how much invincibility it has and most importantly
you're 100% sure where it ends, even before they actually do it. They have predefined distances that can be quickly measured with your eyes. Airdodges are much more powerful, because they take away from the certainty of that aspect. An at the end of an airdodge, the opponent can be anywhere along a large arc, making it far less punishable than the other defensive options (since you have to react to the direction that the opponent drifts during the airdodge, meaning you have less time to position yourself, meaning that you're limited to using quick moves for punishment and only in 1 or 2 directions). Giving them this option directly out of hitstun just makes strings as a whole very ineffective, making the match devolve to just some guaranteed combos and only pulling strings when you want to link kill moves (at least when it comes to the air game).
We can buff defense by other means, but airdodging directly out of hitstun just discourages creativity when preforming combos, because anything that is not a true combo will just be airdodged out of, and the punishment for predicting that airdodge is often not enough to keep your combo going.
DS, you say that AD was the best option regardless of whether it was predicted, but I disagree. If your AD is predicted, you will get hit in the cooldown. If your AD is not predicted, you will not get hit. How, then, is getting hit (predicted) the same as not getting hit? You can make your AD unpredictable through delayed timing, but your opponent can catch on and still punish. You can then start to AD immediately to continue the mixup, and your opponent will adjust. If they think you will delay, you can start to aerial, not only avoid the hit, but also turn the situation in your favor. Here is the current mixup between AD (less risk, less reward) and attacking (bigger risk, bigger reward). There is depth without this code.
You missed the point entirely. My point was that being hit after your airdodge was always better than being hit directly after you exited hitstun, because during the airdodge your
position changes dramatically (that positional change is also completely under your control). So even when I predict your airdodge perfectly, it is still a better situation than before...which frankly doesn't make sense to me (I predicted you but I get a lesser reward than before?)
It seems to me like your strongest point is that to wiggle AD you must sacrifice your DI and thus jeopardize your chance of escape. Yet you continue on to make the point that you can simply flick the stick, and that you shouldn't be wiggling anyway. How, then, can you not just flick in the same direction you were DIing anyway and AD as well? This proves that the extra stick input is ultimately ineffective in changing your options in the air. If it is as quick and simply as a flick, I hold that it cannot have a significant enough effect on DI as to ruin it.
Oh, but I see it quite differently. The flick to escape implies that you know when the hitstun has ended. For if you
didn't know that you were out of hitstun, then how would you time that flick (especially in strings that only have a 2-3 frame window of escape)? On the other hand, if you don't know when the hitstun ends, then it seems that you'd just be flicking the control stick back and forth hoping that it just happens to make you wiggle out, but if that hit happens to be a real combo....then what did that frantic wiggling just do to you?
To summarize, I believe that NAT adds no extra depth that wasn't present already, yet possibly adds a layer of control that is necessary to allow the option to tech where one would usually AD. If the later is true, it is the only selling point of NAT worth looking into. Regardless, I'll be testing the code to arrive at a concrete stance myself.
People kept dismissing that even though that's the first thing that we pointed out with the code.
