Zelda's up-smash

No it isn't staying as is. This move is a terrible mess. A vote has already approved changing up-smash to heavy-armor. It was not a "close" vote by any means. This move will absolutely not be allowed to have inv. frames. However, we can't assign heavy-armor to specific bones iirc.

Inv frames are something that should never be added in. Stuffing approaches is not something I think we should actually code in ever. The inv. frames will be removed, one way or another. I am absolutely opposed to the addition of inv. frames to ANY move, given how we've limited them in several moves (notably MK and Marth up-b's).

Clearly this is still an issue for many. That warrants further discussion.

Invincibility is dumb. Heavy armor is dumb. The vertical range nerf was dumb. Revert it to 5.0.

JCaesar said:

Invincibility is dumb. Heavy armor is dumb. The vertical range nerf was dumb. Revert it to 5.0.

Click to expand...

Makes Zelda need even less moves. If she launches you once and guess right once (your jump) you lose. You cant beat it from above, you cant land on platforms, there is no decay, you cant escape it, you cant dodge it, etc.

If you are in the air above her, you lose, period. THAT was the issue and why the vertical range nerf was needed. Just because there hasnt been a Zelda good enough to abuse it yet does not mean it wont happen.


Also:
Heavy armor on this move is ****ing stupid. Go with the fix Leaf had.

This post:
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=9609594&postcount=30

Heavy armor (depending on the amount) is just going to make the move WORSE. Long range moves could trade with it before, now they have to be long range AND powerful. It just seems like a really bad solution when the current U smash is fine once those issues have been addressed (see Leaf's post above). And I know NY mad hates on Zelda, but the problem with the character is that she only has a few good moves and they were buffed to stupidity, which frankly can be blamed on the person who worked on her the most up to this point. The character was ****tily done and thats something we have to live with, but heavy armor is not going to fix the core issue, its just going to be a laughable change.


After speaking to Thunderhorse, I finally got the thoughts in order:

In 5.0 Zelda's U smash could not be beaten from above by anything other than Ike's dair. That in it of itself was not the issue. The fact that if you were in the air and did not have a jump you would never land. It was either DI off the stage or keep getting juggled since you could not dodge or attack the move. After having this done to me by Umbreon Mow for about 20 minutes I realized the issue.

From there I shrank the U smash size down so that it could not pierce platforms. Bandit complained about the sheer lack of anti air with the move and that is where the partial invulnerability came from. This fixed both issues. Now I have also realized that I coded this incorrectly and Leaf has fixed that.

This U smash allows you to land on a platform and therefore have a place on stage to avoid the move (which is good) and can still anti air badly spaced or short ranged aerials. All of this is good and not overpowered and that is why I feel we should go with the fix that Leaf posted over this stupid heavy armor thing and even more so over the 5.0 U smash (or I will be sure to show people why this is extremely stupid).

Basically that is what should happen with the U smash, whether you listen to me or not.

Bandit's thoughts on the issue (sorry for the block of text):

Bandit]Leppo19 11:49 pm This is why 5.0 is the best course of action. The move of the hitboxes down was to stop her dominance of platforms. When they were moved down said:

In 5.0 Zelda's U smash could not be beaten from above by anything other than Ike's dair.

Click to expand...

I know it's not a big deal but that's incorrect btw. There were at least a dozen aerials in 5.0 that could beat her usmash (I could make a quick list if you want me to), not to mention she was much easier to hit from the side since the hitbox didn't cover her side as well as it does now.

The side hitbox was never changed. And I am sure there were more aerials if they were timed pretty much perfectly, but that is STILL not the issue.

If you are above Zelda (especially without a jump) you wont land. When the move pierced platforms you couldnt even avoid it without going off the stage. Mow showed me that pretty solidly and that is why the change was made, not because I have a "grudge" against the move or some stupidity like that. It was changed because the move is very overbearing and just plain stupid like that.


1) A good shield poke move is now an easily shielded and punished move. The hitbox used to flirt with the top of shields before it would poke through if the shield had been hit a few times. It was great shield pressure but not a guaranteed poke. Now, it's highly unlikely to poke with the hitboxes in the meat of the shield.

- Aim Sheild up. No pokes anyway

played without the invulnerability with Cape's test,

- Thats why the invulnerability was introduced

Adding heavy armor to the current hitbox position would just see a revert to how it was before the invulnerability was added. Most aerials would knock her out of heavy armor.

- I agree with this, its by far the stupidest change

Cape's invulnerability on first 2 hitbox frames would not fix anything and would leave an already punishable move to be far more punishable.

- It makes it a perfect counter move, but it can be punished? ZELDA CAN BE PUNISHED? I guess Ryoko didnt do this well enough.

In the end, the current state of the Usmash caused her to lose her platform advantage, and with her recovery how it is, has left her with little to no counterpick stages.

- FD, cant avoid the U smash. Instead of EVERY stage from before.

Basically all these points dont matter since everything he mentioned that made the move good in 5.0 was either was it was changed in the first place (never being able to land against it) or isnt even on the table anymore (close timing invulnerability).

Its not my fault Zelda is stupid scrubby to play as, I am just trying to make Brawl+ actually good and its sadly too late to fix her enough. Have Chuck go yell at Ryoko or something.


Also, try the fix that Leaf posted (thats to everyone) since it does exactly what the original change was supposed to. The move isnt all powerful (as it never should have been). Bandit may say "This move should beat everything from above like in Brawl" but the move was also escapable in Brawl. So at this point I guess it would be more so, go back to vBrawl or go with the Leaf fix.

None of this Empire State building sized nonsence that I cant get out of (feels like Ness fair).

Just want to post this one more time due to the whole issue in the Zelda thread.

With the 5.0 U smash: If you are above Zelda and have no jump you should never land back on the ground against a good Zelda. There are characters that cannot beat that U smash from above at all and therefore have to go off the stage, which is not good for them. When she can pierce platforms you therefore have nowhere to land (see PS2 and Smashville) since she can still launch you again.

This is why the range change was initially introduced. The invulnerability was added due to the complaining of Bandit at a smashfest where he tested the changes. This kept the anti air abilities of the move intact. The issue with changing it once again was due to my own poor coding skills as Leaf pointed out and the change we are working on is just keeping the same change, but making it work properly.

It is not the fault of those of us who make the game if someone cannot time a move or decide when to use or not use it, but it is definetly in our best interest to remove game breaking issues such as the inability to land against a character when put in the wrong situation. The jump can be baited easily and then punished with multiple U smashes. Since you cannot dodge the move either this only leaves you the option of DIing off the stage, which should never be the only option.

Because I can't be ***** to quote the whole **** topic like he did

None of the current fixes we have is able to placate the community, and I've noticed there's a big divide even in the WBR about what should happen with it. One side thinks that Zelda is not competitively viable and nerfing one of her best tools needlessly is kicking someone when they're down, on the other hand the other side think Zelda is one of the easiest characters in the game to play and win as, especially with her old usmash (just to get one final piece of Zelda input in this thread, though in this post the problem extends to much more than just the usmash and has more to do with Zelda as a character).

I'm honestly a bit torn over what to do with it. I wasn't keen on either option presented to me by Veril, and would have preferred Cape's fix over either option voted on (but on that particular vote we were not allowed to abstain, so I had to pick the lesser of two evils). It's a very delicate situation with her usmash, and I'd like to see if we can buff any other aspects of Zelda as a trade off before we decide to change the usmash from Cape's proposed fix. Judging from the input I received that is not an option though, so we're left with:

1. Go through with Cape's/Leaf's/Project M's fix (the anti-usmash position)
2. Revert it back to 5.0 (the pro-usmash position)
3. Revert it back to vBrawl settings - yes this means undoing Ryoko's SDI modifier as well (which I've seen both major parties involved in this debate agree was an acceptable fix, as well as a few others)

Honestly at this point I would go for reverting it towards vBrawl settings, maybe with very minor altercations to SDI to prevent anyone from simply falling out. 5.0 usmashers get their range and ability to poke platforms back, Project M usmashers have a way to escape from Zelda's usmash and aren't completely ***** once launched from an usmash without their second jump (by virtue of SDIing out of it) and does away with the silly invulnerability problem. It seems to be a middle of the road fix that at first glance seems to work with both parties.

Just my take on it anyhow.

Well the "Project M" fix that Leaf posted is just fixing my coding mistake on the current (and already good) U smash.

I also have to say that the last time we judged a character by its "Best player" (Ness and Simna) we got 5.0 Ness. Right now our best Zelda players are Bandit and Ryoko who have not had the best tournament results and (IMO) should not be the basis for our changes to a character.

We need to figure out this character as to what is best for the character and the game as a whole, not the mains who may or may not know what they are talking about. As was done with everything else in the GSH2 era.

The Cape said:

Well the "Project M" fix that Leaf posted is just fixing my coding mistake on the current (and already good) U smash.

Click to expand...

Is it really a "Project M" fix if Leaf gave it to us to use?

I also have to say that the last time we judged a character by its "Best player" (Ness and Simna) we got 5.0 Ness. Right now our best Zelda players are Bandit and Ryoko who have not had the best tournament results and (IMO) should not be the basis for our changes to a character.

We need to figure out this character as to what is best for the character and the game as a whole, not the mains who may or may not know what they are talking about. As was done with everything else in the GSH2 era.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. Bandit's posts lack any concrete evidence, merely unsubstantiated statements. They also demonstrate a closed minded attitude to the whole thing as he did listen not to Cape about 5.0 Usmash. Now I don't wish to alienate him and anyone else as a player, but his methods were the exact example of what NOT to do if you have feedback. Regardless of gameplay, I do not wish to reward this behavior and grant his wishes. We were already planning on changing the Usmash, Bandit's outburst should not affect our decision.

Also the idea has been brought up that we completely redo Zelda. This is a **** terrible idea as it completely changes whatever metagame we currently have.

The Usmash itself needs testing of our proposed fixes. I urge all of you to try out leaf's .pac for yourselves. If you have other potential ideas, now is the time to mention them.

Leaf's fix (to Cape's fix) is really the best option. I support that. People should try it out.

The other option is reverting it to 5.0, I really don't support that. When we've discussed this for another day or so and I'm convinced you've actually tried Leaf's fix... than we'll need a revote between those two options. There are several other proposals that need to be confirmed as well (Sonic/Mario, the boundary changes I've been working on, etc.)

VaNz, I'd really like to hear from you on this.

Blinds said:

The Usmash itself needs testing of our proposed fixes. I urge all of you to try out leaf's .pac for yourselves. If you have other potential ideas, now is the time to mention them.

Click to expand...

This. If anyone has a better idea for the up-smash, that doesn't involve referencing unrelated moves like DDD's up-tilt (Zelda's up-smash startup is like twice as fast) or Lucas's up-smash (get ***** whoever said that)... please do so.

I talked to Bandit this evening and our discussion was productive. I came up with what I believe is the best alternative to Leaf's suggested fix. That would be to revert the hitboxes vertical placement to 5.0, remove the tripboxes from the move (so it can't trip people on platforms, if we haven't already), remove the invincibility frames, and increase the SDIability somewhat. This is the most like what I've perceived the "pro-upsmash" group as wanting, and Bandit was completely supportive of this. Both fixes have merit, and I'd like to see both tested out esp by Bandit and JCaesar; Cape and Thunderhorse (as is apparently the case). It should be fairly simple to tell which is the better fix based on how well this move is abused. I'll be testing in frame advance to see how aerials can potentially interact with the different variants of up-smash.

After this weekend we can and should make a final decision on this based on arguments and evidence presented. Nobody can say that this decision was unfair or unsubstantiated if we proceed in this manner. I could live with either change, while I agree with Cape atm, inv. are really stupid and I would really like to see them removed.

Bandit isnt a great player. Gonna get a 5.0 Ness thing on the whole thing if we let him make the decision.

Vanz and I know more about Zelda than he does.

btw, I'm drunk

if i can sdi out of the move after getting hit by the tip of it, i wouldnt' have any complaints. I think what makes this move so scrubby is the fact that you get hit at all you have to eat all of it.

doesnt matter

zelda mains just think she sucks no matter what

time to win a tourney with zelda. 5.0 ness style.

This sounds like the best solution yet. It keeps a lot of the move's utility without making it broken in any way. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

Zelda U tilt pokes platforms.

Just like the DDD U tilt thing.

Better comparisons are better.

The Cape said:

Bandit isnt a great player. Gonna get a 5.0 Ness thing on the whole thing if we let him make the decision.

Click to expand...

Isn't it nice how I came up with the fix as opposed to Bandit. I love how my alternate fix is immediately discounted just cause it isn't your's.

The Cape said:

Zelda U tilt pokes platforms.

Just like the DDD U tilt thing.

Click to expand...

Zelda's up-smash is most comparable to Marth's up-tilt in regards to its platform **** except Zelda's doesn't have to arc (so it hits sooner despite them having the same startup). If you consider its ability to trip someone on a platform its really most comparable to Melee marth's up-tilt platform **** vs. Spacies.

JCaesar said:

This sounds like the best solution yet. It keeps a lot of the move's utility without making it broken in any way. I'm looking forward to trying it out.

Click to expand...

A non-tripping up-smash that could be SDI'd out of would be acceptable BUT not necessarily better than Cape/Leaf's fix. tbh I expect Cape will prove his point, but there should still be an alternate option. Glad you like the idea though, since it is the "pro-upsmash" option.

The problem I have with usmash poking platforms is that it stays out so god**** long. And since it's an usmash, it's very easy to position anywhere along a platform, on reaction just about. If you were to fall onto a platform with Zelda below you, you'd have no options but to take another 15% and possibly just fall right back into the same situation another time or two. Her utilt can easily cover this aspect of her game without being so overbearing.

There may not be any ground attacks that **** platforms quite as hard as Zelda's usmash, but there are a ton of aerials that do. It's hardly unique in that function. Honestly I don't know how it ever got to this point. It was never an issue in any previous iteration of Smash (or previous version of Brawl+ for that matter).

So how's that pac coming along?

There were lots of things that werent deemed to be an issue in previous iterations (such as Wolf nair and Ness fair in 5.0).

Lots of things were addressed for lots of reasons.

Also, does everyone keep forgetting that Zelda + Sheik are one character and Sheik covers ALL of Zelda's bad matches? Thats a top tier character right now, but lets just buff her anyway since the people who main Zelda overall are just plain bad.

The Cape said:

There were lots of things that werent deemed to be an issue in previous iterations (such as Wolf nair and Ness fair in 5.0).

Click to expand...

Both problems that we created, identified not too long after, and fixed, as we should have when we screw something up. Zelda's usmash has always been able to hit platforms and it has never been a problem before.

It became a problem when you stopped falling out of it and just couldnt get out of it.

Problem we created and are rectifying. Magus explained in great detail why you cant make the move possible to get out without making it so that any idiot can do it. Therefore unescapable U smash is the best option, but it beating attacks + platforms + launching from the ground and all that bull**** is not.

And dont give me Bandit's "Zeldas wont be able to transition easy" bull****. Lucario mains had to learn their recovery all over again which is a much bigger change. What about Ness and Yoshi players that can no longer double jump with tap jump? THATS a huge change.

You both need to stop isolating this as a single change when alot of stupid **** was removed since 5.0 and this was a change that was seen as a needed fix. Do I have to SHOW you why its stupid like I had to do with 5.0 Ness because you are obviously just THAT thickheaded about this and havent learned that I dont just hate on **** and make random changes for no reason?

Who other than you saw this as a needed fix?

Honestly sometimes it does seem like you don't always do what's best for a character specifically because you either don't like the character or the mains. That's why I had to disagree with you about Marth, because what we were doing was making Marth not feel right and it was clear that you were completely unwilling to compromise with the Marth mains. You say things like every Marth main is bad and you know Marth better than all of them, which is incredibly arrogant and outright wrong in some cases. Sometimes you act like you're the smartest person alive and you're the best at everything ever. I hate to be the one to break it to you but a lot of people think this about you. Arrogance earns you no love. Obviously you're a very good player and you made a lot of good changes in the GSH series but sometimes you just take it too far.

Sorry if that was a bit off topic, and I know you might hate me for saying it, but believe it or not I am saying it for your own good. I would not be doing you any favors by keeping it to myself so people would keep talking about you behind your back.

You act like I dont know about this whole arrogance thing. Lots of things that I changed moving into the GSH2 era were preemptive problems that will happen. Just because no one else saw it does not make it an issue.

If I wasnt such an arrogant *******, we would still have 5.0 and we all know how much fun that is.

Considering how much GSH was programmed by other peoples work and time commitment, taking such substantial credit for the set (while discrediting those others involved with the project) only reinforces JCz's stance. Sure it was your vision, but arrogance is in no way productive, and overall makes people less likely to synthesize quality products/execute. And given that 99% of your pacs have to be redone by other people to get it right, it's probably best that you don't burn your own bridges when trying to act as a team leader.

Key Takeaway: Given the recurring drama and complaints, it might be a red flag that your condescending attitude to your peers is being a burden to your team rather than helping it. This is especially highlighted wherein the very people you work with would rather complain behind your back than be excited about their project. This isn't something that is isolated to this project either, its simply good practice in general. JCz's point still stands, and if you'd rather fall on it with deaf ears, its your loss.

inb4quotesayinggoworkonP:M

Leaders have to break some hearts and feelings. Remember that. =/

Same thing applies to how everyone seems to want B+ to turn into a democracy. Cape might be arrogant, or at least seem like it, but I know plenty of arrogant people who turned out to be great leaders, small or large; and of course, GSH proves that. In my eyes Cape is a fine leader type, meatriding, yes, but still true.

If I really knew what I was talking about more than 50% of the time I would be the same way.

shanus said:

And given that 99% of your pacs have to be redone by other people to get it right.

Click to expand...

LOL RC1 5.0.

What Brawl+ needed was someone who could get together a good team and fix the horrific issues that were destroying the game. Thats all I brought to the table with my brash arrogance. Now that the ground work is laid I felt Veril would be better put in charge (which was agreed on by at least half the team) and now he will do a great job. No matter what change is decided on for Zelda U smash it will be the team's decision (lead by Veril), but we will still have ignorant morons attacking the guy who made it all possible in the first place (Cape).

But yea, Brawl+= dead or dying without my intervention since I fixed what needed fixed even if it was unpopular. Not in this business to make friends, in this business to make a good game (and from what I see here I might be the only one).

But anyway, Zelda U smash. Hitting through platforms and inescapable = problem. Being escapable and hitting through platforms = move sucks (read Magus's post).

Alright. You've all had your say. This is my only warning. No more personal attacks in this thread or I will start giving infractions. Discuss the issue at hand plz.

For the two U smashes currently in debate. The one that does not pierce platforms but can be beaten by well spaced aerials I feel is the best choice and this is why:

The move completes its purpose by actually hitting for the full damage and launching the player while at the same time has a weakness that it must be skillfully and intelligently used in order to hit and KO opponents. She has many setups into it and the move comes out very quickly so is a very solid move. Being able to be beaten from above by well spaced aerials and the ability to land on platforms against it are both good things as it allows the person fighting Zelda a chance to do something about the move. All moves that create a polarizing issue were fixed for this issue.

Now for the other U smash that Veril suggested:
The way Magus explain it is correct, creating a U smash that takes skill to get out of it but isnt just something anyone swinging their sticks in circles to get out of would be extremely hard or impossible. So by poking platforms, but making it possible to get out of this move will never work properly and will most likely never KO against anyone that understands it and is therefore a huge nerf to the move. Poking platforms with it, but having it so that your opponent can basically get out of it mindlessly is not a good way to handle the move. If I wanted to nerf Zelda, that is what I would do, but that was never the intent.

While trying to explain this to Bionic I stated basically that the latter U smash would be similar to Sonic's U smash KOing around 70% but you could mindlessly get out of it. He agreed that that would be a bad change for Sonic, and I feel in this case for Zelda too. The issue is when you cant avoid the move or beat it at all (and in 5.0 there were plenty of characters that could not).

ThatGuyYouMightKnow said:

Same thing applies to how everyone seems to want B+ to turn into a democracy.

Click to expand...

Brawl+ is an oligarchy.

Cape's obviously got a ton of pull by virtue of being right more often than anyone else. I'm not gonna argue this point, especially with people who aren't in the B+broom. He doesn't have absolute power like in the GSH period. The days of just putting in fixes without going through the motions of ratifying proposals are over. Still, Cape is really good at isolating stupid ****. I would go as far as to say Cape is a genius for finding broken elements in this game. That people have the gall to insult Cape (regardless of his abrasiveness) is beyond me.

The resistance to change on Zelda's up-smash is clearly due to a combination of people who are frustrated with Cape and character bias. I don't think that character bias is something we can or should discount entirely though, JC and Bandit clearly have a stake in Zelda. There's also the element of fairness, ensuring that there is a fix on the table that is responsive to what the mains of the character want (esp considering JC is in the backroom)


Back on topic: Magus's claim about ASDI equating to automatic escape from this move makes sense IN THEORY. IMO if someone can QCDI (on prediction in this case since it hits frame 6) out of up-smash, they deserve to escape the move. If the move is being used enough to become predictable or being spammed on a platform I think this is exactly what should happen.

As to tripping up-smash never being a problem. I loled. Watch Apex vids of NL's Zelda vs. Yes!. He gets ***** UNTIL he starts abusing the **** out of upsmash. It doesn't make sense that it trips and its OP for a move that can poke platforms.


@VaNz: it would be hard to get it such that up-smash to up-air doesn't work without completely wrecking the move if we used that fix. It also doesn't address the key issue of how well it stuffs all aerial approaches. I agree that Zelda is a stupidly easy character to pick up.

Magus420 said:

How does the top hitbox being able to trip cause a problem

Click to expand...

Oh I'm sorry, did I not split sufficient hairs with my last response. A tripbox on a hit that pokes platforms = being able to lock someone in place until the knockback hit lands, wracking up free damage in the process. It isn't ensured (though it is fairly reliable), but it is yet another reason to spam this move. Ninjalink abused this at Apex in his tourney match on BF against Yes! Had he started abusing this earlier in the match he could've won.

The Cape said:

It became a problem when you stopped falling out of it and just couldnt get out of it.

Problem we created and are rectifying. Magus explained in great detail why you cant make the move possible to get out without making it so that any idiot can do it. Therefore unescapable U smash is the best option, but it beating attacks + platforms + launching from the ground and all that bull**** is not.

And dont give me Bandit's "Zeldas wont be able to transition easy" bull****. Lucario mains had to learn their recovery all over again which is a much bigger change. What about Ness and Yoshi players that can no longer double jump with tap jump? THATS a huge change.

Click to expand...

It was possible but extremely difficult to escape this move if you were hit with the grounded variant in vBrawl and effectively impossible to escape when hit with the beginning hits of the upper portion (as Jiggs at least). As it stands I don't think making the move easily escapable on prediction is a bad thing unless it could be escaped by holding a single direction as per Sonic's old up-smash.

As to the part about the transition, I agree completely. Zelda is really strange as a character who requires a ton of precision in some respects, but has such a retardedly simplistic defensive game with her smashes esp that it really negates the finesse requirement.

1. The up-smash total duration ≠ the lag post slip-inducing hit.
2. To getup or roll on a platform takes a lot more time than the slip animation.
3. Your options are drastically limited when you've slipped on a platform.

I should have called it a trap rather than a "lock", as it isn't a jab-lock.