using Damage ratios as match-buffer?

Theres been some talk lately about how the 1.1 (1.2) damage ratio can be applied to even out some kinks in Brawl, but this has been for the most part rather controvertial seeing as most people dont wnat to change the ruleset, etc, etc.

However, what if we did this only on certain matches?

For example, (even though you could just Cp...) you are a Wolf vs a DDD. Normally this would kinda suck for the wolf as DDD would just walk over him with chaingrabs.

But, if the ratio was set to 1.1 or 1.2 for only that match, eliminating D3 CG spam, and making the battlefield more even, it could be a much more interesting/competitive match to be part of/spectate.

Im not sure if this would be considered viable at all; to help out in some instances, seeing as the damage ratio hasnt been fully tested, but that is why Im proposing it only be used on a match-by-match basis, sort of speak.

thoughts?

Too much changes happen when playing with the damage ratio. You can't use it for only certain match-ups, it is just too fundamental too the game.

Either go all 1.1 or none.

^This. Plus, how in the seven circles of hell would we ever be able to figure out who deserves an adjusted damage ratio for which matches and by how much?

Also, imho, that's the Wolf player's fault for choosing him. Either get better or choose a different character or whatever, but using damage ratio as a crutch is inappropriate. It's also unfair to the Dedede player to be handicapped for having a better character.

I think its unfair that one can't play a character they want merely because their opponent is a chain grabbing Do***e.

Koji123 said:

I think its unfair that one can't play a character they want merely because their opponent is a chain grabbing Do***e.

Click to expand...

What you call being a ******, I call playing at the optimum level. The solution is to bite the bullet and play a character without the particular weaknesses of the one you chose, or to not get grabbed. The chaingrabber bears no responsibility.

Right, the one shooting the gun isn't responsible for the outcome.

Though the Wolf might stand a better chance, there's no justifiable reason to change the damage ratio. Each character in the game has their own advantages and disadvantages when it comes to match-ups. That's something that the player must realize and either make their character better to stand more of a chance against a bad match-up or choose a different character to handle such situations. Changing the damage ratio is unfairly giving DeDeDe a disadvantage. The chain grab is an advantage he holds which is one reason he is a good character. To take away that established advantage to better accomidate a character who has a disadvantage against DeDeDe is no way fair to D3. The Wolf must work around this disadvantage. We're not supposed to change match-ups to make them easier for the ones with disadvantages, we're supposed to face those disadvantages and find ways to work around them.
Besides, I highly doubt changing damage ratios would ever make it to the tourney level.

No. Selective settings changes would be idiotic.

Koji123 said:

Right, the one shooting the gun isn't responsible for the outcome.

Click to expand...

No, this is more the equivalent of someone, having previously mutually agreed to a duel to the death, shows up to said duel armed with only a broom when he knows the opponent is an expert marksman and is going to be carrying two guns.

if u dont like ur matchup, cp rainbow cruise and pick MK

GG!

REL38 said:

Though the Wolf might stand a better chance, there's no justifiable reason to change the damage ratio. Each character in the game has their own advantages and disadvantages when it comes to match-ups. That's something that the player must realize and either make their character better to stand more of a chance against a bad match-up or choose a different character to handle such situations. Changing the damage ratio is unfairly giving DeDeDe a disadvantage. The chain grab is an advantage he holds which is one reason he is a good character. To take away that established advantage to better accomidate a character who has a disadvantage against DeDeDe is no way fair to D3. The Wolf must work around this disadvantage. We're not supposed to change match-ups to make them easier for the ones with disadvantages, we're supposed to face those disadvantages and find ways to work around them.
Besides, I highly doubt changing damage ratios would ever make it to the tourney level.

Click to expand...

DDD can kill faster/do more damage to compensate with a higher Damage ratio.

The chaingrab also works still, but wears down after about 3 regrabs, so his grab game isnt hurt too badly, infact his Bthrow does like 18 damage

The point is (aside from ICs because their grab game is a metagame in itself, and they are easier to avoid "dont get grabbed") DDD has a plethora of tools besides his chain grab, he allready has the best [Non-ranged] grab in the game, and has epic power/survivability to put him ahead even without his CG.

As with Falco, hes a Space-animal, he has all sorts of shenannigans like fast/long ranged/powerful smashes, lazors, reflector, Illusion, etc, etc etc, why let him have like 75% CGs too?

People complain that this game isnt balanced, and when offers are made to do something about it, people just laugh at it.

It isn't the fact that it's a bad idea to most (in my opinion, it's rather unique), it's the fact that it threatens to take away from regular brawl. Many people didn't like how Brawl played when it first came out. I, for one, had a gripe about it's speed and how long your enemy would live. But the more I played, the more I realized that I had to change my play-stlye from Melee and create a new one.

The people who disliked how Brawl was either went back to Melee or simply quite the game altogether. Others who wanted the game to resemble more of Melee created Brawl+. That appealed to those who still wanted the main aspects of Brawl, but also desired certain factors that were only present in Melee.

So when it comes down to Smash, people will:
a) play Brawl
b) play Brawl+
c) play Melee

The majority of people play Brawl and most of Smashboards focuses on the metagame of Brawl. Brawl+ is popular, but not enough for it to start up regional or national tournements (at least for now, maybe). Melee is still around, but will undoubtfully dwindle down in popularity in the next coming years. To introduce yet another way to play Smash competively causes some players to groan and simply toss it off as nothing. People will see it as a far-fetched concept and will laugh at it because of how unconventional it is. Changing the ratio is a unique idea, but will not gain popularity because a metagame has already been established for the former three. To start playing with an altered ratio changes the entire metagame of standard Brawl. To change the ratio to something simple, like 1.1, could potentially change characters at drastic levels. For instance, at 1.1 ratio Cap. Falcon can dish out those knees like hot-cakes. There's no longer any awkward sweetspots. So would changing the ratio to 1.1 bring Falcon up from the bottom tier to mid-tier? Perhaps even more.

It's not that changing the ratio is a horrible idea that should have never been thought of in the first place. It's just unconventional to start changing gameplay aspects when Brawl has already progressed so much into it's metagame.

JOE! said:

People complain that this game isnt balanced, and when offers are made to do something about it, people just laugh at it.

Click to expand...

It's one thing to complain about it. It's another to go to ridiculous lengths to artificially change the game.

The suggestion is to, apparently, adjust damage ratios for specific match-ups. Um... whut? So who would decide which match-ups deserve such a re-balancing? What's the threshold for what deserves a re-balancing? How can you tell D3 that he doesn't deserve that CG on those characters yet also tell Fox to suck it up and eat that CG from Pikachu? Or are we just gonna "re-balance" the hell out of the game?

Also, damage ratio changes the game drastically. With less/more damage, we change not only the damage inflicted but also the knockback inflicted, thus also the comboability of moves. It becomes a whole other game.

If you want a perfectly balanced game, go play GGXX. If you want to play Brawl, suffer.

Well, the real question is, how do we feel about changing the damage ratio to 1.1 for ALL matchups?

You'd be surprised how much is changed, and maybe for the better.

Koji123 said:

Right, the one shooting the gun isn't responsible for the outcome.

Click to expand...

**** straight. Though someone should have told Andrew Jackson's assassinator that. >.>

REL38 knows what s/he's talking about.

Yuna said:

No, this is more the equivalent of someone, having previously mutually agreed to a duel to the death, shows up to said duel armed with only a broom when he knows the opponent is an expert marksman and is going to be carrying two guns.

Click to expand...

Read my mind and then made me laugh :D

Yuna said:

Or are we just gonna "re-balance" the hell out of the game?

Click to expand...

Which, on a sort of related note, is another misgiving I have with this whole concept: Considering that the metagame evolves continuously, people will find new avenues of abuse no matter what settings you play with. The adjusted settings may even turn out to be more broken than the defaults.