Adjusting the Damage Ratio to 1.1 for Balance

[Dark 3nergy]

Seriously though, you guys are willing to change a ton of match-ups, but removing one character is a mind-boggling offense?

MAKES NO SENSE.

Edit: Testing stuff in friendlies is not the same, by your own logic. You can't get many TRUE conclusions about the metagame without implementing such a sweeping change in a tournament environment.

its an additional 10% knock back distance, its really not very game breaking at all. It just alters slide physics, and knock back at lower %'s

mk aint ever gonna get banned, not while people are winning with him and using him as a perfect secondary raziek. Its just never gonna happen now.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

Seriously though, you guys are willing to change a ton of match-ups, but removing one character is a mind-boggling offense?

Some people think Meta Knight isn't the problem.

 

[Raziek]

Some people think Meta Knight isn't the problem.

 

[Espy Rose]

mk aint ever gonna get banned, not while people are winning with him and using him as a perfect secondary raziek. Its just never gonna happen now.

Of course he won't get banned, at least with this terrible attitude.

Some people think Meta Knight isn't the problem.

And those are the crazy ones.

 

[TheReflexWonder]

I laughed, but it -is- pretty silly to imagine, admittedly.

And those are the crazy ones.

Quite right...

 

[san.]

You can test aspects of 1.1 by yourself or in friendlies. You have no idea how it will effect the game unless you analyze and play every possible matchup.

Banning MK means you're not really testing anything. You're just needing to learn a larger variety of matchups, and learn material already present in the game.

In fact, banning MK is actually less work than this is. It doesn't require any testing by yourself, as the results are fairly obvious. You won't be fighting Mk anymore.

Not having the game is really altering your sense of reality. If you've actually played 1.1, changes are so far and few between, one only needs to slightly alter matchup analysis once people note the most obvious changes, that can be seen by anyone actually playing. One can easily "analyze every possible matchup* just by noting these changes and having light discussion.

Throw setups last for a lesser percent. Most combos still work, and may or may not last the full %. A *few new setups are made, which are slightly better versions of setups already known, because of the extra hitstun. Even though these throws lasting to a lower % still take into fact that the reward is still similar, because they can kill earlier.

Banning MK means you have to do a thorough analysis of new tournament trends, and closely look at matchup analysis on many characters who now have a much higher chance to play each other without resorting to MK in a set. It will require much work as a united community to gather this data and observe the changes in the metagame. You need to learn LESS matchups with MK gone, because there's one less character.

Results are not fairly obvious. Was there an overlooked counter among the high tiers with MK banned? Which characters are able to flourish or stagnate? How can previous MK mains cope with this new situation, resorting to focusing on their secondaries? There are many sources of information to keep track of.

It is still possible to do much of the above with 1.1, but I was only talking about just testing 1.1 compared to testing an MK ban. You don't just make MK be banned without having the necessary precautions and looking for specific sets of data over time.

 

[SuSa]

If the community is up for 1.1, I already said I agree with it.

I personally think it'll break Snake even more. I've yet to find anything detrimental to his gameplay by adding knockback to moves.

 

[ShippoFoxFire]

Lucario might seem more fun at 1.1 ratio XD

 

[EPsilon933]

Lucario might seem more fun at 1.1 ratio XD

From what I've played, fsmash kills sooner (obv) but on wii-fi spacing fsmashes is extra good now. Also, not living so long gives you less aura.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

a friend of mine suggested playing with 4 stocks w/ 1.1.

So why not try that out

 

[Steam]

as a lucario main this would make me sad. but maybe it would make it so Lucario can't get CG'd by D3 anymore... we can always pray...

 

[z00ted]

After looking over it.

I'm for testing this ruleset out in tournaments.

 

[BigDaddy4]

this is just getting dumb now.

 

[z00ted]

Care to explain why?

 

[Renegade TX2000]

how's it getting dumb?

 

[Steam]

It'll never happen because most of the backroom will just say "nuuu we can't nerf nadoooooo... I needs mai ehmkay to not take last D:"

 

[Renegade TX2000]

It'll never happen because most of the backroom will just say "nuuu we can't nerf nadoooooo... I needs mai ehmkay to not take last D:"

LOL! I can't breathe!!!!!

























Through my nose!

 

[The Truth!]

lol. People complain about 'gay' stuff too much. You want to selectively remove chaingrabs and combos while a character like Ice Climbers can still exist? I wonder how melee players would react if someone suggested they set the damage ratio to 1.1 to avoid chaingrabs, uthrow uair, and jiggs rest combos because they're gay. Unless youre going to remove all gay stuff theres not point in selectively removing half of it.

 

[EPsilon933]

lol. People complain about gay stuff too much. Just deal with it. You want to selectively remove chaingrabs and combos while a character like Ice Climbers can still exist? I wonder how melee players would react if someone suggested they set the damage ratio to 1.1 to avoid chaingrabs, uthrow uair, and jiggs rest combos because they're gay. Unless youre going to remove all gay stuff theres not point in selectively removing half of it. Thats some BS.

You don't need to wonder why about my user title then

 

['V']

People shut down things way too quickly before even giving them proper testing.

This game is ours to fiddle around with. If you don't wanna test it, then don't, but don't berate others for doing so. Change is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[The Truth!]

Hey I dislike Marth's sword. It's pretty gay. I cant seem to get around it his range is too much, would you mind changing that for me? Maybe make it less disjointed?

By the way if people want a game without gayness, theres a lil something known as balanced brawl. Yaknow, that thing several developers spent a ton of time on to remove all the gay things from brawl? aka the right way of doing it and not selectively harming certain characters as a 1.1 ratio would do. Im sure the developers are slamming their heads on their keyboards at the intent of this thread if theyre reading this.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Hey guys, let's differentiate here. We're not actually banning or removing something. Complaining about this rule weakening chaingrabs is like complaining about 3-stock, 8-minutes, 1.0 strengthening stalling tactics, or 1-stock, food on high nerfing broken things, or Diddy Kong getting worse because you have more than 3 stages legal. This isn't a ban in any way. Any damage ratio setting is the same as far as "banning things" goes, just like items on/off, that we play with 3 stocks, that we play with stock mode, that we ignore coin mode, ET CETERA.

 

[Ripple]

just thought I'd give everyone an update as to a few "kill" throws/moves % comparisons

keep in mind that the following character is attempting to kill snake WITH DI on FD

--------------------------------------------------------- DR 1.0 -------------------- DR 1.1

Ness B-throw ---------------------------------- 158% ------------------------- 132%

Lucas D-throw ---------------------------------200% ---------------------------160%

Snake up-tilt ----------------------------------145%-----------------------------117%

Ganon Murder stomp ----------------------117% ----------------------------95%

 

[The Truth!]

Ok so if this isnt intent on weakening chaingrabs or selectively harming certain characters, then why without discussing chaingrabs, removing certain combos or multihit moves, etc. would we go from 1.0 to 1.1?

 

[Ripple]

Ok so if this isnt intent on weakening chaingrabs or selectively harming certain characters, then why without discussing chaingrabs, removing certain combos or multihit moves, etc. would we go from 1.0 to 1.1?

we will discuss chain grabs eventually. we aren't implementing it without testing

 

[The Truth!]

As I said this version of the game already exists. Its called balanced brawl, and its better.

 

[demonictoonlink]

I love everything that The Truth! has ever posted. I'm probably biased because I agree with it all, but at least to me it always seems logical.

That aside, is Brawl really that bad? Like, are people not having fun with it? Are tournaments dying out? Are only Meta Knights winning? If so, maybe this weird change is a good idea. I just don't see it. A wide range of characters from a wide range of players seems to be winning things. I mean, nobody seems to be able to beat m2k right now (Larry's got this so don't even worry), but other than that one player it seems that different players with different characters are winning real tournies. I dunno, just my two cents, but brawl seems fine as is right now.

 

[Ripple]

As I said this version of the game already exists. Its called balanced brawl, and its better.

I don't have the luxury of hacking my wii just in case it breaks anytime soon and I might need to send it in.

 

[bigman40]

You can't say "This version (Balance Brawl) exists" because that's a hack, which is illegal for national tourney standards. Damage Ratio is another "option" within the game just like the items and controller set up.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

You can't say "This version (Balance Brawl) exists" because that's a hack, which is illegal for national tourney standards. Damage Ratio is another "option" within the game just like the items and controller set up.

THIS! There's no reason to set the damage ratio to 1.1 other than for explicit balance purposes. But what's the reason to set it to 1.0?

 

[Dark 3nergy]

as a lucario main this would make me sad. but maybe it would make it so Lucario can't get CG'd by D3 anymore... we can always pray...

nope, the only one that falls off the list of CGables would be Marth. And even for lucario, he would slide back abit further. Maybe he'd drop a grab, but other then that still CGable.

yup, tested it, still works.

 

[ShippoFoxFire]

nope, the only one that falls off the list of CGables would be Marth. And even for lucario, he would slide back abit further. Maybe he'd drop a grab, but other then that still CGable.

yup, tested it, still works.

ffffff-

only adds more to the annoyance that is this matchup.

 

[z00ted]

So since some characters can still be chaingrabbed where do we draw the line?

 

[Dark 3nergy]

not really. In my brief test i only grabbed him about 3 times. Max would prolly be like 4.

DDDs ftilt prolly wont connect on some characters, but ive got tricks to get around that anyway thanks to wifi.



@Illmatic, its just the nature of DDDs CG in general and the physics of how it works, is what enables him to CG. If you boost the damage ratio up more to like 1.8 or 2.0 i cant really CG anyone. But if you lower it to 0.5 i can small step infinite just about everyone i can already CG, and even CG people i normally wouldnt, like MK.

Falcos CG gets the foot in the *** as far as the 1.1 goes. While Pikachus fthrow and dthrow CGs are pretty much cut in half as far as the damage he can do with them.

 

[SuSa]

Err.. what do you mean 3-4?

DDD's chaingrab sort of has a weird effect.... unless you're talking about "about 3 times" going across FD or something?

If you can grab him 2 times in a row, it suggest you can grab him further. DDD's grab is weird in that it may only require 1 pummel between a grab to continue the CG. Forget the science behind it though.

 

[bigman40]

I'm fairly sure the CGs won't be screwed other than Pika's being reduced substantially. Currently, there's no reason to change the ratio except to make MK closer to the rest of the cast.

 

[Dark 3nergy]

Err.. what do you mean 3-4?

DDD's chaingrab sort of has a weird effect.... unless you're talking about "about 3 times" going across FD or something?

If you can grab him 2 times in a row, it suggest you can grab him further. DDD's grab is weird in that it may only require 1 pummel between a grab to continue the CG. Forget the science behind it though.

its 2 hits when he sits on the opponent, the second waft is the knock back

i tested it on smashville. Not at the very tip of the stage tho. 4 times meaning theoretically i can get 4 grabs on final d. Let me check this now though.

5-6 on Final D is what im getting. The timing sort of feels like it needs to be tighter.

 

[The Truth!]

Assuming we're not attempting to balance the game, the reason for 1.0 over 1.1 would be because its an established standard.

You can't say "This version (Balance Brawl) exists" because that's a hack, which is illegal for national tourney standards. Damage Ratio is another "option" within the game just like the items and controller set up.

Its not an options thats similar to balanced brawl, its a half-way attempt or worse. It harms specific characters and still doesnt remove the most egregiously gay parts of the game. Changing it wont balance the game, itll simply shift the balance to favor different characters, by the looks of it those that can kill early and have powerful singular hits. Remove combos, die earlier, suffer more for one hit strong attacks

Spoiler

...and its no wonder you see lots of Ike and DK mains in favor of this...

.

What I dont understand is if youre really so concerned about balancing the game, why do it in such an unbalanced way? Just make rules that eliminate the gay things you dont like. Its a much more affective way of doing what youre intent on accomplishing. And for anyone concerned with adding unnecessary rules 1.1 really does not balance the game, it replaces gay with gay, and doesnt even eliminate the worst gay.

Also the only national tournament that hacking would affect is MLG.

 

[Ripple]

after people asked no one cares about my kill % comparisons

 

[SaveMeJebus]

THIS! There's no reason to set the damage ratio to 1.1 other than for explicit balance purposes. But what's the reason to set it to 1.0?

you don't set it at 1.0. It already is set at 1.0