Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
Is this a bad thing? I thought you were one of the ones who wanted the game to be aggressive. I find active edgeguarding fun. It's boring if I can just hang on the ledge and abuse the ledge occupancy glitch to watch my opponent fall to their doom or jump on the ledge right when they're about to grab it like in Brawl. Edgehogging is non-interactive; active edgeguarding (offstage or onstage) is interactive.
So don't do that. You're too used to hanging on the ledge while your opponent is trying to recover, but it's not a good option in Smash 4. Why not try to ledgetrump them instead of letting then ledgetrump you?
And guys, please stop assuming I have no idea what I'm talking about. I've been following Melee since 2004, and even though I don't play it a lot anymore I do play PM which borrows its mechanics. When I do try to play Melee or PM and use defensive options like shielding, it doesn't work nearly as well as in Brawl or Smash 4. Even things that should be unsafe like a DDD fsmash on shield become safe. Trying to shieldgrab Fox is useless, even Hax said so in that article someone linked (I would take that with a grain of salt anyway; I only skimmed over it but in the parts I read he seemed very salty, calling a lot of things broken). So the only defensive options in Melee/PM that really work are things like dashdancing and crouch cancelling. Dash dancing still leaves you vulnerable, so I'm not sure if you can really call that defense, and crouch cancelling requires you to actually get hit, which makes that questionable as a real defensive option too. Basically, in Melee offense is the best defense, and if that's the case I don't know how you can say the game isn't skewed towards offense.
-I would like the game to have more reward for offense. It doesn't necessarily have to be more aggressive, just provide worthwhile effort for properly spaced moves and hit confirms. How is edgehogging not active edgeguarding if I may ask? You're actively grabbing the ledge to prevent the opponent from grabbing it themselves pre/post gimping, WoP, etc. I don't see how it's passive. No matter what edgehogging is indeed interactive. The edgehogger is interacting with a stage mechanic, thus preventing the opponent from interacting with it while trying to recover. Thus the interaction occurs between both players as well.
-This is easier said than done. I tend to go offstage for gimps, reads fors meteors, etc. Oftentimes this results in a ledge grab when recovering from said attempt if I go deep. I don't want to land onstage if it means more time to prevent me from stopping a recovering person.
-I would like the game to have more reward for offense. It doesn't necessarily have to be more aggressive, just provide worthwhile effort for properly spaced moves and hit confirms. How is edgehogging not active edgeguarding if I may ask? You're actively grabbing the ledge to prevent the opponent from grabbing it themselves pre/post gimping, WoP, etc. I don't see how it's passive. No matter what edgehogging is indeed interactive. The edgehogger is interacting with a stage mechanic, thus preventing the opponent from interacting with it while trying to recover. Thus the interaction occurs between both players as well.
-This is easier said than done. I tend to go offstage for gimps, reads fors meteors, etc. Oftentimes this results in a ledge grab when recovering from said attempt if I go deep. I don't want to land onstage if it means more time to prevent me from stopping a recovering person.
Edgehogging in Melee is non-interactive because the victim never gets a chance to prevent it once they're offstage.
If your gimp attempt fails, try to arrange to regrab after they do, thus trumping them again for a second follow-up attempt. Plus, if you're at high enough percent that they can KO you out of a ledgetrump as well, then that's a risk you're taking. It's just like how in Melee, a successful defence can easily lead to just as strong of a follow-up as a successful approach.
Edgehogging in Melee is non-interactive because the victim never gets a chance to prevent it once they're offstage.
If your gimp attempt fails, try to arrange to regrab after they do, thus trumping them again for a second follow-up attempt. Plus, if you're at high enough percent that they can KO you out of a ledgetrump as well, then that's a risk you're taking. It's just like how in Melee, a successful defence can easily lead to just as strong of a follow-up as a successful approach.
You mean the interaction once the edgehog attempt has been performed or before?
I'll attempt that idea and try to incorporate it into my match ups. Though I really don't like the idea of being put at that much of a disadvantage because of said earlier things.
@Zoa
The flaw in your position is that attacks are generally supposed to lose to shield. Instead of asking "why dont my attacks beat my opponents shield" you should be asking "why am I attacking a shield in the first place?" As indicated grabs beat shield to create a fair game of RPS on approaches and many coming from melee are the only ones who seem to think that attack options should be the be all end all "attacks beat everything" option of smash which is a bit bizarre. Even then, this isnt true for every character in melee as every melee character loses to attack on shield just like in smash 4 except for fox, falco, and peach which is why the game is so unbalanced in the first place. What youre proposing is smash 64, and as I already mentioned that game is the most defensive of them all in part for those reasons. Unfortunately youre drawing the wrong conclusions from the mechanics.
Also rolls are punishable by fairly strong attacks, even characters like Ganon have strong burst movement to punish them, the same ones he had in melee. Dash dancing certainly isnt going to do him big favors in this regard.
@Zoa
The flaw in your position is that attacks are generally supposed to lose to shield. Instead of asking "why dont my attacks beat my opponents shield" you should be asking "why am I attacking a shield in the first place?" As indicated grabs beat shield to create a fair game of RPS on approaches and many coming from melee are the only ones who seem to think that attack options should be the be all end all "attacks beat everything" option of smash which is a bit bizarre. Even then, this isnt true for every character in melee as every melee character loses to attack on shield just like in smash 4 except for fox, falco, and peach which is why the game is so unbalanced in the first place. What youre proposing is smash 64, and as I already mentioned that game is the most defensive of them all in part for those reasons. Unfortunately youre drawing the wrong conclusions from the mechanics.
Also rolls are super punishable by fairly strong attacks, even characters like Ganon have strong burst movement to punish them, the same ones he had in melee.
"Yes. I agree there should be more of an inherent risk when shielding as there are inherent risks to approaching. There should be more of a disadvantageous position when confining yourself to a position (shield), or giving up space (rolling). Especially when you have options OoS against poorly spaced aerials, smashes, etc. What I would like to see for Smash 4 shield isn't necessarily make more moves safe on block, but provide some inherent risk to committing to it other than making many moves unsafe on shield."
I'm not thinking what you're implying. You're right though. Almost nothing is safe on shield in Smash 4. Even when properly spaced. I find it a tad dumb even when properly spaced, but it's what it is. How exactly are my thoughts comparable to Smash 64? I've had my fair share of it with KnitePhox in the past, and I really can't fathom how this is a comparison to it in that kind of environment. I read your post on it, and it just screams to me the same way Smash 4 is handled except with the extreme level of combo ability Smash 64 provides, and absolutely lagless aerials with Z-cancel that allow safe options on shield. There's never been a fair RPS game of attack, shield, and grab. 64 and Melee give you options safe on shield, and allowed shield pressure. You can even waveland, Z-cancel/L-cancel properly spaced aerials, and other spaced moves to avoid punishment OoS. Brawl shield beat just about everything that wasn't a grab, and made shield pressure extremely risky. Same for Smash 4. Projectiles and disjointed hitboxes that are safe don't even apply to this RPS idea.
The thing is shielding is already very risky at high to top levels, its usually low level where its a bigger issue because people dont like to go for grabs for some reason. Not to mention that anytime you do shield youre stuck in it for awhile compared to the past, plus now theres a lot more shield pushback on hits, shield degeneration, and attacks that shield poke (maybe in part because of degeneration). Between attack, shield and grab; the best option is grab by a decent margin because of the high rewards you recieve from them.
The thing about having aerials that are safe on shield is that its impossible to give them to everyone, and thats part of why both melee and brawl became unbalanced. Even then in Smash 64 shielding is almost useless so no one ever does it, which is why its mostly just people spacing attacks. When shields are adequate this isnt a problem; in smash 4 you can shield attacks to beat them, and to combat that you would grab a shielder.
The thing is shielding is already very risky at high to top levels, its usually low level where its a bigger issue because people dont like to go for grabs for some reason. Not to mention that anytime you do shield youre stuck in it for awhile compared to the past, plus now theres a lot more shield pushback on hits, shield degeneration, and attacks that shield poke (maybe in part because of degeneration). Between attack, shield and grab; the best option is grab by a decent margin because of the high rewards you recieve from them.
The thing about having aerials that are safe on shield is that its impossible to give them to everyone, and thats part of why both melee and brawl became unbalanced. Even then in Smash 64 shielding is almost useless so no one ever does it, which is why its mostly just people spacing attacks. When shields are adequate this isnt a problem; in smash 4 you can shield attacks to beat them, and to combat that you would grab a shielder.
I mostly agree with the bottom half. The thing that still comes to mind is it discourages shield pressure, and makes many direct attacks in neutral a far more dangerous commitment without a form of movement option for indirect pressure. Many characters rely on direct attacks because of either a lack/none disjointed hitboxes/projectiles. Either way giving the cast the option(s) (using L-cancel and wavedash here as examples) will always be unbalanced. It's to be expected.
Do you happen to have shield formulas, or know if they're available yet?
I feel the game is generally offensive enough. If anything the only shortcoming I really feel *presently* is still rolls.
We can go into the whole roll discussion but I'm not particularly interested in doing so. Rolls are viable, they are supposed to be, but I'm not satisfied with their implementation in Smash 4.
Other then that I feel smash 4 is fine, use Grabs. If you have a poor grab game you probably have a bunch of other tools to make up for that (hello Villager and Pacman).
I feel the game is generally offensive enough. If anything the only shortcoming I really feel *presently* is still rolls.
We can go into the whole roll discussion but I'm not particularly interested in doing so. Rolls are viable, they are supposed to be, but I'm not satisfied with their implementation in Smash 4.
Other then that I feel smash 4 is fine, use Grabs. If you have a poor grab game you probably have a bunch of other tools to make up for that (hello Villager and Pacman).
i was thinking of possibly giving rolls slightly more ending lag, but still keep the invincibility start-up frames, which will still make it a viable option to get out of pressure, but i think for that to work, the shieldstun would be increased slightly.
unfortunately I think alote of people are kinda off track when talking about how to "solve" the defensive play smash 4 is developing. IMO i think this is only a problem for most because defensive options are acutely usable this time around, not only is trying to decrease them or change them impossible right now, but it may just make those defensive options unusable again. what we should be focusing on is bring offensive options up to par with their defensive counter parts, see smooth lander and all the work people studying that have come up with if you wana know what I'm talking about. if we were to figure out a work around the make the BADGE ALONE balanced for competitive play then I dont really see the need to down grade the defensive options when we have a method of upgrading the offensive options ( to the point ware they may be equal) readily available to us.
oh and heres a conspiracy theory; I think Nintendo intentional put this badge in for a way to make the game more appealing to the competitive scene, of course they missed the mark abit but at least they got us started.
Yes. I agree there should be more of an inherent risk when shielding as there are inherent risks to approaching. There should be more of a disadvantageous position when confining yourself to a position (shield), or giving up space (rolling). Especially when you have options OoS against poorly spaced aerials, smashes, etc. What I would like to see for Smash 4 shield isn't necessarily make more moves safe on block, but provide some inherent risk to committing to it other than making many moves unsafe on shield.
Tagxy addressed this previously, but I'd like to make my own point on this.
Shields in Smash 4 (and Brawl to an extreme) are created this way because characters who need to rush down but get past spacing (Mario, Ganondorf, Samus, etc.) need a method to play safe against characters who are quicker or have disjointed range. One of Mario's best approach options is actually shield-dashing opponents who aim to use their disjointed range against him, and the reason why this is important to know is because without that inherent shield advantage (i.e, high shieldstun and high shield pushback), characters like Mario, Ganondorf, etc. wouldn't have the ability to do anything to cover their natural disadvantages. Characters with longer range would constantly just poke their shield over and over again until they couldn't do anything.
Are there ways to work around this? Yes, though even in Melee's scene, Marth's superior range invalidated a lot of the cast, so Melee's superior speed and movement options doesn't quite help out characters when they have no way to get inside. I should also point out that Marth's superior range and aerial movement in Brawl also invalidated a good majority of the cast as well (and Metaknight to a more extreme effect).
What isn't being realized is that due to free movement and disjointed range being prevalent, having high shield stun would actually hurt a lot of the cast who can't take advantage of this, if only because not every character can have the luxury having powerful options in footsies.
More like Melee players with narrow experience in other games criticizing every game that isn't Melee because it isn't Melee.
Defense-focused gameplay feels amazing as long as the characters themselves are balanced. Brawl would've been fairly good if not for MK and ICs effectively ruining the metagame, hopefully Smash 4 will succeed in that regard. So far it certainly has, and when more characters develop and balance patches are released it may get even tighter.
This topic starts out as a poll but seems to automatically assume people don't like defensive play, even though the poll clearly shows that a balanced metagame between defense and offense is the most favored option. Smash 4 currently is doing just that with it's moderate follow-ups, strong grab game, effective projectile game and good shield/rolls.
A lot of activity in this thread, more than I expected.
Tagxy addressed this previously, but I'd like to make my own point on this.
Shields in Smash 4 (and Brawl to an extreme) are created this way because characters who need to rush down but get past spacing (Mario, Ganondorf, Samus, etc.) need a method to play safe against characters who are quicker or have disjointed range. One of Mario's best approach options is actually shield-dashing opponents who aim to use their disjointed range against him, and the reason why this is important to know is because without that inherent shield advantage (i.e, high shieldstun and high shield pushback), characters like Mario, Ganondorf, etc. wouldn't have the ability to do anything to cover their natural disadvantages. Characters with longer range would constantly just poke their shield over and over again until they couldn't do anything.
Are there ways to work around this? Yes, though even in Melee's scene, Marth's superior range invalidated a lot of the cast, so Melee's superior speed and movement options doesn't quite help out characters when they have no way to get inside. I should also point out that Marth's superior range and aerial movement in Brawl also invalidated a good majority of the cast as well (and Metaknight to a more extreme effect).
What isn't being realized is that due to free movement and disjointed range being prevalent, having high shield stun would actually hurt a lot of the cast who can't take advantage of this, if only because not every character can have the luxury having powerful options in footsies.
sooooooo to get us back on track before we start slandering each other....
this stated out as a simple response to you HeroMystic, but is evolved into so much more. so just disregard the stuff that dosent apply to you
I think theres another side to this example that might be beneficial for this discussion, even tho I agree with you that giving the shield more hit stun is counter intuitive, the benefits that the shield has is partially to much. Consider the shield cancel; literally the technique of approaching and just shielding to remain safe, It's remarkable how this technique has become dominate in smash4 to the don't ware in the game one of the most beneficial ways of approaching has been through a defensive technique. honestly only in MK has a defensive option been viable for approaching so trying to fix it through ordinary fighting game logic ( that adding more hit stun, make defenders unsafe on block) is not productive. instead however I would look for ways in which we could improve the attackers options when being faced with a shield, this is because right now shielding offers very little counter play for thous who are forced to attack it.
When I say counter play I mean ways in which one can beet out shields, presently shields are so powerful in this game that they don't acutely offer the attacking players many options to counter it. "What about grabs and running grabs" one would say and yes those are considered natural counters to blocking however the defender has a multitude of counter play options to avoid said natural counter, rolling, spot doges and jumping out of shield give defenders the advantage once again when it comes to gameplay. thus currently while attackers have 1 options (grabs) to counter blocking and running blocks, defenders have then another 3 reliable options to either avoid or counter the grab (spot dodge, rolling and jumping out of shield). leaving us at the moment with unbalanced gameplay which honestly favours defensive play.
currently if Marth were to throw out a perfectly spaced Fair, any character who is perfect shields it or has good reactions on block would be able to easily punish ( in one way or another) despite the Marth spacing his arial perfectly. while this dose offers a new and different type of smash experience ( one focused on bait and punishing attacks, reads and spacing) it however dose not allow more offensive options of play, this isn't bad per say ( its simply different) it however leaves something to be desired for a lot of players a feeling that believe can be remedies quite easily actually.
if you been paying attention to any of my previous comments you'd know im a fan of the Smooth lander badge, I'm an even bigger fan of it know that it can be unlocked with static states across all consoles. while problems have been shown to emerge form it when used raw, finding a way ware it can be used to an fairly may be the key to making smash4's gameplay balanced. returning to that Marth example with smooth lander on a perfectly spaced Fair could still be blocked however now it would be a lot harder for the defender to counter Marth's aggression, if Marth however were to miss-spaced his arials agents a defender shield garbing would be as optimal as ever of a punish agents it. while this is still all theoretical it's something that warrants serious consideration, I myself am looking into the data of it and am planning to go into more experimentation after I finish my exams for school, but till then keep on theorizing my friends.
This topic starts out as a poll but seems to automatically assume people don't like defensive play, even though the poll clearly shows that a balanced metagame between defense and offense is the most favored option.
The poll is a loaded question, you can't take it seriously. What are those of us who feel that Melee already is that balanced game, as opposed to labeling it as all offense when that couldn't be further from the truth, supposed to click?
The poll is a loaded question, you can't take it seriously. What are those of us who feel that Melee already is that balanced game, as opposed to labeling it as all offense when that couldn't be further from the truth, supposed to click?
No game can be all defense or all offense. One could argue Brawl has a balance of both as well because it certainly has both elements but there's no way to precisely measure it. To my understanding the poll sets an example, it asks whether you prefer a more offensive game closer to Melee or a more defensive game closer to Brawl, or something between the two. Those are the only two measures we have so a balance would have to be in the middle. It's certainly safe to assume neither of the games are already well balanced in that regard, but something between them could be.
I don't buy Melee having a balance between defense and offense though. Some characters having good oos options in neutral game doesn't make it balanced. Being able to punish completely reckless approach doesn't make it balanced. Being able to DI out of some combos or escape from a tech chase doesn't make it balanced. It's minimal. Pretty much every fighting game people play has some sort of a wakeup/tech chase game, blocking/bursts/parrying, projectiles and punishing. Having an exact balance between defense and offense means that it is as likely to win by forcing an approach and punishing it as it is by approaching and that returning to the former defensive position yields the same reward as continuing offense when the opponent is in a negative state. This has to vary from character to character of course, but the overall metagame in a well balanced fighter needs to be one where these attributes are true. Those are the definitions of defense and offense and I just explained an imaginary scenario where they're equal. Neither Melee or Brawl enjoys such a situation and it is very clear.
Now of course, this is hard to make into a practical scenario especially in Smash where having to recover from offstage is a part of the punish for losing at neutral, but not giving that person enough defensive options like good recovery and good airdodges would greatly encourage further one-sided offense, changing the balance towards offense's favor and going back into a defensive position such as camping would become much less rewarding. Combos that are very long and/or have lenient timing further decrease the reward for defensive play more, because you get the same damage for less work and risk. It's pointless to explain this any further, but this is why I think that so far Smash 4 has the most balance in this regard. I also like the pacing of it, combos exist but they're short, making matches be decided rather by more than by fewer events, having you to keep outthinking and outguessing your opponent over and over and giving both players the chance for both defensive and offensive play while at it. The mechanics certainly give you the tools for that, with the balance between attacks, pressure, shield, dodges, projectiles and grabs etc.
All smash games have a defensive tilt in terms of their mechanics, which is preferable. Yes even Melee, its certainly not 50/50 and Ive heard as much from its top level players. In terms of defense it goes:
64 > Brawl > Melee
Smash 4 has a defensive tilt as well but its not a significant one.
However the gameplay for each game leans offensive, easy enough to determine since games rarely degenerate to timeouts or one player camping a lead the entire game consistently. This is because the series' primary goal is offensive oriented, remove all stocks from the opponent. The players use the tools (game mechanics) theyre handed to accomplish this goal, and if the games mechanics made it easy to achieve this goal it wouldnt be very deep or interesting. I actually think PM suffers from this the most and is perhaps the best example of why a game with offensive mechanics and an offensive goal has issues, fun as the game can be approaching is generally too straightforward. For that reason its actually preferable for smash mechanics to lean defensive so long as it doesn't make gameplay degenerative, fortunately this is true for every smash game.
I dont know about 64 being most defensive when you factor in the huge hitstun and the lack of spot dodges
the offensive reward for throws and combos in 64 is ridiculous
edit: wow didnt realize this post was a few days ago
More like Melee players with narrow experience in other games criticizing every game that isn't Melee because it isn't Melee.
Defense-focused gameplay feels amazing as long as the characters themselves are balanced. Brawl would've been fairly good if not for MK and ICs effectively ruining the metagame, hopefully Smash 4 will succeed in that regard. So far it certainly has, and when more characters develop and balance patches are released it may get even tighter.
This topic starts out as a poll but seems to automatically assume people don't like defensive play, even though the poll clearly shows that a balanced metagame between defense and offense is the most favored option. Smash 4 currently is doing just that with it's moderate follow-ups, strong grab game, effective projectile game and good shield/rolls.
I guarantee most melee players that have issues with the game have played more competitive smash than you have.
Brawl would not have been good by the way of editing meta knight or ice climbers because its flawed in so many other ways.
you can call it a good party game but when you start making claims that melee players are assholes who only tried melee you're calling out everyone worth a damn in the tourny scene.
I dont know about 64 being most defensive when you factor in the huge hitstun and the lack of spot dodges
the offensive reward for throws and combos in 64 is ridiculous
edit: wow didnt realize this post was a few days ago
I guarantee most melee players that have issues with the game have played more competitive smash than you have.
Brawl would not have been good by the way of editing meta knight or ice climbers because its flawed in so many other ways.
you can call it a good party game but when you start making claims that melee players are *******s who only tried melee you're calling out everyone worth a damn in the tourny scene.
It's because the offensive reward is ridiculous that 64 becomes so defensive. People just sort of throw aerials that are just barely out of range, hoping for the foe to screw up their spacing slightly so they can land a hit. The punishment for screwing up an approach is too severe, so offensive pressure doesn't really exist. Unlike Melee where you feint ("feint" as in deliberately whiff moves close enough to scare the opponent) with the goal of setting up a later hit, in 64 you just throw "feints" forever in the hopes that a mistake on your opponent's part turns one of those "feints" into an actual hit.
Brawl has other problems, that's true. The biggest offenders are the extreme power of SDI making multi-hit moves effectively non-options, and even some single-hit moves having such bad frame data as to be unsafe on hit. Also on the list are shields decaying too quickly from being held up while also not taking enough damage from attacks, and Perfect Shielding being overpowered.
It's because the offensive reward is ridiculous that 64 becomes so defensive. People just sort of throw aerials that are just barely out of range, hoping for the foe to screw up their spacing slightly so they can land a hit. The punishment for screwing up an approach is too severe, so offensive pressure doesn't really exist. Unlike Melee where you feint ("feint" as in deliberately whiff moves close enough to scare the opponent) with the goal of setting up a later hit, in 64 you just throw "feints" forever in the hopes that a mistake on your opponent's part turns one of those "feints" into an actual hit.
Brawl has other problems, that's true. The biggest offenders are the extreme power of SDI making multi-hit moves effectively non-options, and even some single-hit moves having such bad frame data as to be unsafe on hit. Also on the list are shields decaying too quickly from being held up while also not taking enough damage from attacks, and Perfect Shielding being overpowered.
oh i agree about the punishment in 64, but the punishment is a long string of aggressive play, as opposed to like smash 4 where you get maybe one or two hits out of it (pretty much guaranteed if you're diddy)
oh i agree about the punishment in 64, but the punishment is a long string of aggressive play, as opposed to like smash 4 where you get maybe one or two hits out of it (pretty much guaranteed if you're diddy)
The thing is you're only accounting for the "reward" aspect of the game which actually doesn't factor in nearly as much as the neutral play where players are fishing for the hit confirm. That is basically 90% of Smash 64, characters weaving back and forth and focusing on not getting hit, because getting hit essentially means you lose a stock unless you get lucky or your opponent drops the combo. So due to the lack of options within a disadvantaged state (i.e. you got hit), the major focus is on the neutral state.
The thing is you're only accounting for the "reward" aspect of the game which actually doesn't factor in nearly as much as the neutral play where players are fishing for the hit confirm. That is basically 90% of Smash 64, characters weaving back and forth and focusing on not getting hit, because getting hit essentially means you lose a stock unless you get lucky or your opponent drops the combo. So due to the lack of options within a disadvantaged state (i.e. you got hit), the major focus is on the neutral state.
the prospect of being able to go ham on someone is worth the wait though, whereas campy play in brawl and smash 4 rewards you with a hit or two and then its back to it, which is part of why 2 stock is the standard.
I guarantee most melee players that have issues with the game have played more competitive smash than you have.
Brawl would not have been good by the way of editing meta knight or ice climbers because its flawed in so many other ways.
you can call it a good party game but when you start making claims that melee players are *******s who only tried melee you're calling out everyone worth a damn in the tourny scene.
Are you really trying to discredit everybody who's not a Melee player? Probably half of the Melee scene started playing last year or this year because of the documentary and/or Evo (they're what we call "docuevo kids"). But yeah, you're probably right. ESAM, you suck. Nairo, you suck. Ally, git gud. ZeRo, you're lucky you play Melee now because otherwise you'd be a fraud.
And trust me, I've tried playing PM defensively (that's close enough, right?) since I read this topic. It's very hard even against much worse players. Probably a majority of the moves in the game are safe on shield, even things like Kirby's up smash. I can really only do it with Link. I used to be able to do it with Zelda but they nerfed her zoning so she's hardly got any tools to play with defensively now. I try with Falco and Jigglypuff in Melee sometimes but it's not nearly as rewarding as offense.
And trust me, I've tried playing PM defensively (that's close enough, right?) since I read this topic. It's very hard even against much worse players. Probably a majority of the moves in the game are safe on shield, even things like Kirby's up smash. I can really only do it with Link. I used to be able to do it with Zelda but they nerfed her zoning so she's hardly got any tools to play with defensively now.
PM is not the same game as Melee. I think we can all agree that PM is generally more aggression favoured.
If you want to camp in Melee, try Sheik. Needles all day, F-tilt to sway away aerial approaches, wavedash back --> grab, 6 frame nair OoS. That there, folks, is a pretty strong defensive character.
When I say counter play I mean ways in which one can beet out shields, presently shields are so powerful in this game that they don't acutely offer the attacking players many options to counter it. "What about grabs and running grabs" one would say and yes those are considered natural counters to blocking however the defender has a multitude of counter play options to avoid said natural counter, rolling, spot doges and jumping out of shield give defenders the advantage once again when it comes to gameplay. thus currently while attackers have 1 options (grabs) to counter blocking and running blocks, defenders have then another 3 reliable options to either avoid or counter the grab (spot dodge, rolling and jumping out of shield). leaving us at the moment with unbalanced gameplay which honestly favours defensive play.
Then those individual counters have counters with punishing rolls, spot dodges, etc. It's all a layer of mind games.
currently if Marth were to throw out a perfectly spaced Fair, any character who is perfect shields it or has good reactions on block would be able to easily punish ( in one way or another) despite the Marth spacing his arial perfectly. while this dose offers a new and different type of smash experience ( one focused on bait and punishing attacks, reads and spacing) it however dose not allow more offensive options of play, this isn't bad per say ( its simply different) it however leaves something to be desired for a lot of players a feeling that believe can be remedies quite easily actually.
while it's true that roles are often countered physically, these physical counters come in the form of reads and while this is fina and all it once agin gives the defensive player the advantage. the offensive player is then forced to try and basically guess their way into an advantageous position, it may work some times to great effect but it can also be taken advantage of by the defensive player giving them another edge. this is also the same for spot doges as well, this isn't a mark of bad gameplay mind you it just shows how defensive options are preferable in the neutral game. and without a balance the player will often go to these more powerful options when forced into a mind game scenario, for instance two player spot dodging and shield garbing in front of each other till dome one chicken out or get caught out.
If marth spaces his arials perfectly no, he should not be punished for doing so, if he dosen't then of course he should be punished. while the length of the punish may very due to character, a marth who miss spaces their arials can be easily punished via a shield grab ( with or without smooth lander). the issue right now is that certain character can punish Martha even if he spaces them perfectly; simply by shielding it and attack or garbing while he lags.
granted im no expert this is just my observations from what i'v seen, played and heard
"Melee has no defensive options" -> see Armada vs. Hundrybox at Genesis 2
smash has gotten more and more defensive with each incarnation (arguable with 64 -> melee because floaties but overall...), and i think since melee its been for the worse. Not approaching is pretty much always the best option unless youre losing, and thats pretty boring.
Although I think once people "solve" melee camping from the lead will still be shown to be the ideal strategy.. just a difficult one to effectively employ.
If marth spaces his arials perfectly no, he should not be punished for doing so, if he dosen't then of course he should be punished. while the length of the punish may very due to character, a marth who miss spaces their arials can be easily punished via a shield grab ( with or without smooth lander). the issue right now is that certain character can punish Martha even if he spaces them perfectly; simply by shielding it and attack or garbing while he lags.
granted im no expert this is just my observations from what i'v seen, played and heard
you know "should" means what we think should happen. Because we expect balance between defence and offence, being that marth had to space his aerial (not easy) and all the attacked player had to do was press shield (easy), we'd expect the player who showed more skill to be at an advantage, or at least not be punished. But defence is super strong, so the defending player gets the punish even though he showed little skill.
well your right, whether Marth will be safe using his moves will really depend on the matchup. i just think in general if we want to create a positive meta game we aught to do whatever we can to not punish players for playing well, so if Marth Fair should have to be punishable at max spacing range then the punish should not be too drastic ( aka. the defensive player only has time to get a light hit in or back off). In the end tho this is all just my opinions on how this game should develop, currently a lot of charters with disjointed hitboxes ( sans the top ones) suffer greatly on block, being punished for doing a move which is essentially supposed to help you establish a neutral game can be frustrating at times.
you know "should" means what we think should happen. Because we expect balance between defence and offence, being that marth had to space his aerial (not easy) and all the attacked player had to do was press shield (easy), we'd expect the player who showed more skill to be at an advantage, or at least not be punished. But defence is super strong, so the defending player gets the punish even though he showed little skill.
this guys got a good idea of what I mean, currently the defensive counter play for most offensive options are too strong, and most of it boils down to the large margin of time that players have to commit to do these offensive options ( aka. landing lag).
Then don't use only aerials for your approaching. A disjointed hitbox, with its safety in reach, needs some sort of drawback. It could be that they decided that being unsafe on block was the risk.
If you're Marth, you have a shield breaker and a long-range grab to mix up your approach with. Be smart about your approach instead of just expecting spaced fair to work every time. If the game was that easy it wouldn't be very interesting.
"Melee has no defensive options" -> see Armada vs. Hundrybox at Genesis 2
smash has gotten more and more defensive with each incarnation (arguable with 64 -> melee because floaties but overall...), and i think since melee its been for the worse. Not approaching is pretty much always the best option unless youre losing, and thats pretty boring.
Pointing out an obscure matchup definitely helps your point. Especially one with an unviable character who happens to have a decent matchup against one top tier. Not approaching when you're winning tends to be the best option in any fighting game, except maybe the offensively-oriented ones like BlazBlue (and Melee?). It shouldn't be boring because someone has to approach, and if you can't have fun if you're not the one approaching then maybe you need to reevaluate your playstyle (or maybe you're playing an offensive game?).
Although I think once people "solve" melee camping from the lead will still be shown to be the ideal strategy.. just a difficult one to effectively employ.
@shapular
i think melee is the best smash game... ur totally misinterpreting my post lmao. all i said is that melee is more defensive than 64 and thats fine, but after melee defensive options have gotten way too good. When I say not approaching is always the best option, im talking about Smash 4...... also I love playing defensively.... i think planking is fun lol. but smash 4 is so defensive that i cant even enjoy it.
Anyways for a less obscure matchup just to annoy you see Westballz vs. Armada in winners quarters at TBH4
defensive options will probably win out in the end (in melee), but the game is fun and people like it because they havent yet, whereas smash 4s meta is defensive from the very beginning
this is an obvious yes, the problem is that by that point your not really playing smash 4 anymore. smooth lander I'm okay with but adding high gravity is to drastic of a change.
I respectfully disagree with you because an example that points to the contrary of what you say already exists. Smash 64 is slow and floaty but still fun and exciting to watch and play. I don't find rolling around and chipping damage to be either of those things. That is why I play Smash 64 and Melee and not the newer games.
I really don't think so, especially with heavy gravity. Heavy gravity immediately negates the usage of many characters because it obliterates their chance of recovery. Smooth lander will make some characters more viable, but will also make already "over-viable" characters even better. For instance, a lot of people complain about Diddy being too good, and part of that is the fact that he has very minimal landing lag. If that minimal landing lag were reduced to nothing, then it only puts him further ahead of the rest of the cast.
I really don't think so, especially with heavy gravity. Heavy gravity immediately negates the usage of many characters because it obliterates their chance of recovery. Smooth lander will make some characters more viable, but will also make already "over-viable" characters even better. For instance, a lot of people complain about Diddy being too good, and part of that is the fact that he has very minimal landing lag. If that minimal landing lag were reduced to nothing, then it only puts him further ahead of the rest of the cast.
I don't think this is necessarily true, take into consideration that the reduction that smooth lander gives is not uniform. this guy here made an excellent analysis of smooth lander and how it affects landing lag (slightly outdated but still an interesting read), Diddys' landing lag is pretty standard amongst the faster lagless characters (sheik, Luigi) his real strength lie alot with his granted grab to UPair and UPair strength and reach in general. if you take a look at the chart youll see that his UPair is pretty laggy when used near the ground, the problem that once in the air Diddys' can spam it easily and once again grab combos into it. unfortunately smooth lander cant do anything for the moves reach power and set ups, that something that can only be solved through a patch, all an all I dont think we should allow the fear of one character stop us from testing this.
I'll just add in my two cents to say that I personally just dislike how powerful rolling is and how all options to attacking shields are non-existent thanks to increased landing lag on almost every move in the game. Seriously, trying to adjust to a defensive nature (Even if I main Toon Link and Mega Man) is painful and overall boring, a I'm not allowed to be aggressive because my options are crap.
I've pretty much accepted that this game is a good casual game for me, but I hate the fact that For Glory is the better option in terms of playing other humans when my friends aren't around. Otherwise, I'll gladly play Melee or P.M. with others when I'm able.
