The definition of a combo

[Jazriel]

What is the definition of a combo? I constantly see people say things like "oh, he could've escaped so it's not a real combo". Isn't the whole purpose of a combo to be a string of attacks that are successful because of your mindgames? I don't understand how having a game where hitstun is reduced ruins it or prevents "combos" from happening.



This is in the Tactical Discussion because I want a serious attempt to define what a "combo" is. I think people are being incredibly naive and lazy assuming that Brawl should have "auto-combos" like melee did. I think having Brawl the way it is opens it up and forces creativity.

 

[DeuceBlade]

I thought comboing was simply chaining attacks together...

 

[Magus420]

* Combo

- n. - A series of hits that, once the first connects, the rest all continue to connect without giving the opponent the ability to defend at any point. Some games have moves that act as "Combo" breakers, but most do not. - v. - To perform a Combo on an opponent.

You are just talking about landing more than one hit on someone without them avoiding them or you getting hit back. That is not a combo.

 

[chaddd]

This is what happens when people try to explain concepts that don't exist in their game. Mike G said it best. I don't have combos, I have consecutive hits. The impressiveness of a 'combo' is based on the skill level of who it was performed on. At least for smash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svUL1IkNa5Y

Those are combos. Inescapable, predetermined hits that are counted and clearly shown to be inescapable. Smash has none of these. Smash has no combos. Smash has Smash DI.

 

[Jazriel]

Melee had a few inescapable combos that I'm aware of, and many more that I'm not aware of.

If people understand that "smash doesn't have combos" then why are people complaining about Brawl having no ability to combo? What's so great about a game that has an inescapable string of attacks?

 

[DTKPch]

Well, that is true. The pure definition of a combo deems that smash has no combos, since DI makes it "escapable" in a way. In other words, other games combos mean that the one being combo'd has no influence on what happens after that first hit.

However, for the sake of smash discussion, I think we need a definition of a smash-combo. I think a smash-combo is a series of hits that are linked together, and the one being hit can do nothing but DI (i.e. it's deemed not a combo once the person can airdodge, second jump, attack back, tech against a wall or the ground, etc).

You're definition of mindgames to get consecutive hits would fall under "tech-chasing" or something.

This is the reason why most people say Brawl has no combos. In Brawl, DI'ing away and airdodging as soon as possible allows one to airdodge before the other person can get to you.

As for the arguments for why combos make a fighting game worse: people taking this viewpoint most often say combos are bad because once hit, the one being hit can't do anything, which is lame (somewhat like being wobbled in melee: once you were grabbed by ICs who knew who to wobble, you couldn't do anything. Say goodbye to that stock).

Well, I have two points against this:
1.) COMBOS TAKE SKILL. Especially in smash, it takes even more skill to read DI. You can't just press certain buttons like in other games. However, even in other games, they take skill. Pick up Ivy in Soul Calibur II and try to push that sequence of buttons that makes her do that crazy move with the chain-thingy (yeah, really specific, I know). Or pick up Tekken and try to do one of those ten-hit sequences. It's impossible to do without practice, hence it takes skill.

2.) COMBOS MEAN PUNISHMENT. So what happens when you have a game without combos? Look at Brawl and Melee, and their respecitve combo abilities.

In Melee, if you were a a pro Fox fighting a pro Marth, and you attacked his shield with an aerial without l-cancelling it, you were in for serious trouble. The Marth can shield grab you, CG to 30%, CG with utilts to even higher %, then finish off with a ken combo or fsmash. Essentially, you just got 0->death'd.

In Brawl, if you improperly space an aerial, whoopty-freaking-do. The opponent can shield grab your aerial, and then what? Unless they're D3 or something, they do a throw that does some small % damage (under 15) that they can't follow up with. You make a mistake, you get 15% damage. Or they can do a move oos (like MK can dsmash). But unless you're at a high percent, that won't do much either. Sure you take 20 or so damage, but they can't follow up and you just recover.

This punishment which melee had made it a more demanding game. Pros couldn't afford to make mistakes, because the match was always on the line. A single missed l-cancel could lead to severe punishment. In Brawl, a pro can make a mistake without worrying about it as much. Sure, they'll still try to avoid mistakes, but really, what's gonna happen if they make one or two per match?


****NOTE**** I do not want my post to cause this thread to degenerate into Brawl v. Melee. Focus more on the Combos v. No Combos part of it, please and thank you.

 

[Twin Dreams]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svUL1IkNa5Y = Combo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsbEj2JzPtU = little combo



More importantly...


Why is this even a debate? You can't change the way things are. If you enjoy Brawl competitively, then play in tournaments. If not, then don't.



As long as you follow your heart....

 

[Tyr_03]

Most Melee combo videos aren't technically all "combos." Instead they are mainly escapable consecutive hits. And yet somehow they look sweet, make you win and most people enjoy watching them. Inescapable combos are great and all but I think we can live without them. And for the sake of simplicity I have nothing against someone calling something a combo even if it is technically escapable. If you want to play a game where you can trap an opponent and kill them without them having any chance of escaping you're playing the wrong game.

 

[Yuna]

Melee had plenty of combos. DI just made it impossible to string together reaaaaally long combos like F-tilts as Sheik. But it had combos nonetheless. Brawl has almost no combos.

Get used to it.

 

[rubiksfriend]

Melee may not have SF combos, but those consecutive hits are still combos. At certain %s, nair to knee with C. Falcon is inescapable.

 

[Dark Sonic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcR9MLryyOY
That is what should happen when you mess up. You should be combo'd to oblivion, as incentive to not mess up.
(yes I like that match a lot. that's why I keep using it.

Brawl is too lenient IMO.

And melee had plenty of combos. They were percentage specific, character specific, and DI specific, but combos nontheless. If you were Marth and you tipped a fair on Gannondorf, I'm pretty sure most of the time you could follow up with another attack and there's nothing the opponent could do about it (well, theoretically they can SDI the fair to get far enough away, but we don't have that kind of percision). To me, if I can get a guaranteed hit after another attack, that's a combo.

 

[uremog]

combos in smash are pretty controversial because many don't follow the standard definition of a combo used by other fighting games.

the strict definition says that when the first hit connects, all the other hits will also connect. if it relies on a guessing game, it's called a mix up (which is a mindgame). this is usually characterized by the right and wrong answers being difficult to distinguish quickly enough.

many people tend to use the word very liberally in smash because of the situational nature of all combos in the game. this is mostly because of the lack of hit stun and powerful DI in brawl.

most "combos" in brawl are not strict combos.

 

[theONEjanitor]

Melee did not have true combos.
Brawl does not have true combos.

Melee's "consecutive hits" were harder to get out of, but there was no such thing as an "unescapable combo" in Melee due to Smash DI.

In Melee, you had to predict your opponent's movements in order for you to land "combos". This alone dqs them from being true combos, which are automatic extra hits no matter what you opponent does. In some cases, the assumption that your opponent "won't smash DI" is the only "prediction" needed.

In Brawl, you have to predict your opponents movements in order to land consecutive hits. You have to THINK HARDER because it's easier to escape.

yet you people think Melee is the deeper game llmfao

 

[everlasting yayuhzz]

Melee did not have true combos.
Brawl does not have true combos.

Melee's "consecutive hits" were harder to get out of, but there was no such thing as an "unescapable combo" in Melee due to Smash DI.

In Melee, you had to predict your opponent's movements in order for you to land "combos". This alone dqs them from being true combos, which are automatic extra hits no matter what you opponent does. In some cases, the assumption that your opponent "won't smash DI" is the only "prediction" needed.

In Brawl, you have to predict your opponents movements in order to land consecutive hits. You have to THINK HARDER because it's easier to escape.

yet you people think Melee is the deeper game llmfao

Are you saying Melee is not as deep as Brawl? Laughable.

 

[IceEmblem]

Melee had a few inescapable combos that I'm aware of, and many more that I'm not aware of.

If people understand that "smash doesn't have combos" then why are people complaining about Brawl having no ability to combo? What's so great about a game that has an inescapable string of attacks?

UUHHH, so if you perfect them you will be unstoppable.

 

[Jazriel]

In Brawl, you have to predict your opponents movements in order to land consecutive hits. You have to THINK HARDER because it's easier to escape/

This is my sentiment exactly. I see Brawl being "deeper" than Melee merely because it's not retardedly broken. Oh noez! I attacked a pixel off and LOST AN ENTIRE STOCK. How is that fair? One mistake should be punished accordingly. Not an entire life lost.

In my opinion, the game should be understood in a move-by-move basis. In the previous Fox vs Marth example, Melee's flaws are shown because of exactly that: the combos. Oh look, one mistake that has a punishment completely out of proportion to the mistake.

I see Brawl as being far more neck-and-neck, far more fair. You need to play perfectly to pull off a combo, you need to play perfectly to even get 20% ahead. When you 0-to-death someone it's not "Oh, nice tech skill" it's "Oh snap! I just got tricked!"

It's because of this view, that I was confused with the definition of a combo. You can 0-to-death people in Brawl, but is that a combo? I would say yes, you attacked, they did not, you attacked again, they did not, you attacked again, and their defenses were not adaquate. To me, this is a combo. So because Brawl does have "combos", I don't understand why people say it's a bad game.

What puzzles me even further is that why do people want games with the strictest definition of "combo"? How sad is it that there are games where say 50% of your life can be taken off if you land this one particular move? Why don't you just make that move do 50% and void the combo all together? Sure, utilizing that combo is "skill", but at the pro level that "skill" is universal.

 

[Twin Dreams]

This is my sentiment exactly. I see Brawl being "deeper" than Melee merely because it's not retardedly broken. Oh noez! I attacked a pixel off and LOST AN ENTIRE STOCK. How is that fair? One mistake should be punished accordingly. Not an entire life lost.

In my opinion, the game should be understood in a move-by-move basis. In the previous Fox vs Marth example, Melee's flaws are shown because of exactly that: the combos. Oh look, one mistake that has a punishment completely out of proportion to the mistake.

I see Brawl as being far more neck-and-neck, far more fair. You need to play perfectly to pull off a combo, you need to play perfectly to even get 20% ahead. When you 0-to-death someone it's not "Oh, nice tech skill" it's "Oh snap! I just got tricked!"

It's because of this view, that I was confused with the definition of a combo. You can 0-to-death people in Brawl, but is that a combo? I would say yes, you attacked, they did not, you attacked again, they did not, you attacked again, and their defenses were not adaquate. To me, this is a combo. So because Brawl does have "combos", I don't understand why people say it's a bad game.

What puzzles me even further is that why do people want games with the strictest definition of "combo"? How sad is it that there are games where say 50% of your life can be taken off if you land this one particular move? Why don't you just make that move do 50% and void the combo all together? Sure, utilizing that combo is "skill", but at the pro level that "skill" is universal.

You actually made in interesting point. You have to actually work to get even the slightest advantage! However, it'll still be a camping guerrilla warfare.....


I don't know.


I just don't know. Time will tell. My advice to everyone is just enjoy life and have fun! Life is short! Follow you heart. If Brawl turns out to be a good game, it'll happen on its own.

 

[Yuna]

Melee did not have true combos.

Melee's "consecutive hits" were harder to get out of, but there was no such thing as an "unescapable combo" in Melee due to Smash DI.

In Melee, you had to predict your opponent's movements in order for you to land "combos". This alone dqs them from being true combos, which are automatic extra hits no matter what you opponent does. In some cases, the assumption that your opponent "won't smash DI" is the only "prediction" needed.

1) Yes it did.
2) Not everything could be Smash DI:ed. Especially not below 80% or so.
3) Not true. If you were any good, you'd have the reaction time combo people regardless of their DI from certain moves. This is what Sheik, Marth and Captain Falcon, for example, were great at.

They had moves with lots of hitstun, little knockback and little DI-possibilities (even Smash DI:ed). You needed reaction time and timing but there were plenty of combos that were, indeed, guaranteed... especially if you were fighting a fastfaller depending on who you were.

 

[FrostByte]

After every hit in melee, you had 2 possible scenarios. What you would do if your opponent were to escape, going for an aerial chase or tech chase and what to do if they wouldn't, continuing the combo.

In brawl, you only have one scenario to work with, what you will do after they escape because they will, keep in mind the techchasing option is gone. So how the hell can anyone say brawl is deeper than melee?

 

[Cisne]

Twin Dream , what you see as a way of balancing the game, for other is just a newbie aid.

You make a mistake in a melee match , you provably lost that stock, because your opponent is [[Insert pro player name here]] and you know he/she will combo you to death without any mistakes.

In brawl you make a mistake and your opponent start "comboing" you, but a certain point ( not so far ) you will be able to scape and start you offensive again. You scaped without to much trouble.

I suppose Sakurai was aware of melee´s metagame and implemented this , in order to to help newbies with their Victory/Lose rate againts pro players.

But what you say confuse me and I cannot judge now if this is for newbies or for true pro players.

 

[Vidda]

The reason you can't call any moves in Brawl combos is because there isn't a pre-defined formula that you can use to guarantee hits. Too many variables are involved. I see this as being good because it will make play styles more unique. You can't simply read how to do a combo on this board, go get the muscle memory and then repeat it infinitely. On the fly adaptation is the name of the game.

 

[matricide]

I'm a fighting game fanatic and combos are an essential part in making a good game. It seems the more the game pushes toward an aggressive player the more competitive the game gets. For example, in Bloody Roar, long has one of the longest STRINGS in the game, it breaks at points and allows for easy counter, but I fear his down down kick, because I know it spirals and sets up for a 3 hit combo to QCF Beast.My point here is that there should be some extent to the comboability of brawl because its all improv,If they made the stale moves reduce stun faster and kept gravity and L cancelling(c'mon its been in there since 64, it should be a feature by now) combos would be like 3 for ganon(heavy hitter) and 6 for shiek(light hitter).

Plus, most fighting games,besides MVC and melty blood, like guilty gear and naruto, 0 to death is almost impossible without the most rare timming and confidence from the opponent.

Who wants to abolish great moments like diego the beast http://youtube.com/watch?v=LKWEG91P5e4

 

[ph00tbag]

Twin Dream , what you see as a way of balancing the game, for other is just a newbie aid.

You make a mistake in a melee match , you provably lost that stock, because your opponent is [[Insert pro player name here]] and you know he/she will combo you to death without any mistakes.

In brawl you make a mistake and your opponent start "comboing" you, but a certain point ( not so far ) you will be able to scape and start you offensive again. You scaped without to much trouble.

I suppose Sakurai was aware of melee´s metagame and implemented this , in order to to help newbies with their Victory/Lose rate againts pro players.

But what you say confuse me and I cannot judge now if this is for newbies or for true pro players.

"n00b friendly" =/= "balanced"

A game is in fact less fair, and more unbalanced when a less experienced player has a chance against a more experienced player. The better player should be winning, and there's a problem if they're not. Melee rewarded smart, skillful play doublefold by making it harder to punish better players, and with difficult combos that skillful players could pull off if their opponents made mistakes. It has already been demonstrated that, at least from a combo perspective, Brawl does not do this.

Brawl's system of punishment is much more dependent on spacing and position, and the player with the positional advantage can punish his or her opponent accordingly. However, his or her options are still limited to moves that will either maintain his or her advantage, or restore the match to equilibrium, often times leaving out options that will be more damaging. In effect, Brawl is less deep for ultimately limiting options, and punishing aggressive play. It becomes very defensive as a result, as has been said already in this thread.

 

[0m3n5150]

Here's a bit of mathmatical proof.

Combo = abbreviation for Combination
Combination; a number of things combined

"things" being the variable.

Our Combos refer to attacks.

Substitute attacks for the variable "things"

You come up with:
Combination; a number of attacks combined

Which abbreviated, states:
Combo; a number of attacks combined


There you go.
=D

 

[FakeKraid]

Drill-shine-dash-smash was a genuine combo in Melee. It wasn't big, but the hitstuns were such that you literally could not DI to get out of it. It isn't a long combo, but there you are.

And it is laughable to say that Melee was not as deep as Brawl. First of all, Brawl has not been out as long. People are still new to it, and they haven't had time to make it as deep. But Melee was a more technical game, while Brawl is more of a thinking game. Arguing which is better is a waste of time; both require a great deal of skill and practice, but they require different skills and different kinds of practice. I agree that turning this into a Melee vs. Brawl forum is a bad idea, but that's because turning any forum into a Melee vs. Brawl argument is a bad idea.

Don't be down on Melee players because they learned a game that was so unbelievably technical that we still haven't figured out everything that can be done in it. I know that I will never be half as good as players like Mewtwo King at that, and I respect them for it.

Don't be down on Brawl players because they are learning a game that is so well balanced that you always have a chance to turn a match around if you out-think your opponent well enough. I happen to be extremely good at doing just that, and I rarely lose more than the first match against most of the people I play against. That is because I played Melee the same way for five years (before I started learning the technical stuff). It didn't win matches in Melee, but it does in Brawl. I hope people will respect me for that.

So let's not get into fruitless and emotionally disturbing arguments.

 

[chansen]

combo: consecutive hits on an opponent that usually ends in their death. Usually without any hits back from the opponent.

not too hard, and why are we talking about depth now?

 

[Koga]

* Combo

- n. - A series of hits that, once the first connects, the rest all continue to connect without giving the opponent the ability to defend at any point. Some games have moves that act as "Combo" breakers, but most do not. - v. - To perform a Combo on an opponent.

You are just talking about landing more than one hit on someone without them avoiding them or you getting hit back. That is not a combo.

Not in smash.


Stop applying SF terms to smash. Its bad for the comunity. Smash is not comparable to traditional fighters at all in terms of competative worth. Smash doesn't have SF combos because it doesn't work like SF. If that's what you're expecting out of smash then please GTFO because smash isn't the game for you.

SF, GG and MBAC are all fine games and i have nothing against them. But this whole debate hinges around the fact that Melee was vaugley similar technically to those games and so people got used to that. But the fact is that smash has a fundamentally different system than those games. In those games each character has a health bar and so its a fight over positioning in order to land a hit and then the combo serves to deal damage to your opponents health meter. The goal is to deal sufficient damage to K.O. the opponent, and it is a finite measurable amount. Combo's work very differently in those games as they serve a different purpose.

In smash, we deal damage in order to increase the % chance that our attacks will send the opponent flying far enough to take a stock, and when a character has no remaining stock that character loses. Nothing is guranteed in smash. Especially with so many defensive manuevers that are easy to execute like shielding dodgeing and DI. In smash, our "smash combo's" serve to increase our opponents % and control the flow of battle in order to deal the hopefully killing blow. Inescapable attacks in a system like this would be horrible for competative play. and as such there are none. There were very few if any in melee anyways.

it is for this reason that smash is just as deep as all those other fighters: Nothing is guranteed but your mind, and your strategy. No amount of specific button imputs can gurantee your victory. only your attack plan and timing.


Edit: this isn't directed at magus, sorry, i was just trying to give my rant some context buy putting his definintion in my post.

 

[Zankoku]

Not in smash.


Stop applying SF terms to smash. Its bad for the comunity. Smash is not comparable to traditional fighters at all in terms of competative worth. Smash doesn't have SF combos because it doesn't work like SF. If that's what you're expecting out of smash then please GTFO because smash isn't the game for you.

SF, GG and MBAC are all fine games and i have nothing against them. But this whole debate hinges around the fact that Melee was vaugley similar technically to those games and so people got used to that. But the fact is that smash has a fundamentally different system than those games. In those games each character has a health bar and so its a fight over positioning in order to land a hit and then the combo serves to deal damage to your opponents health meter. The goal is to deal sufficient damage to K.O. the opponent, and it is a finite measurable amount. Combo's work very differently in those games as they serve a different purpose.

In smash, we deal damage in order to increase the % chance that our attacks will send the opponent flying far enough to take a stock, and when a character has no remaining stock that character loses. Nothing is guranteed in smash. Especially with so many defensive manuevers that are easy to execute like shielding dodgeing and DI. In smash, our "smash combo's" serve to increase our opponents % and control the flow of battle in order to deal the hopefully killing blow. Inescapable attacks in a system like this would be horrible for competative play. and as such there are none. There were very few if any in melee anyways.

it is for this reason that smash is just as deep as all those other fighters: Nothing is guranteed but your mind, and your strategy. No amount of specific button imputs can gurantee your victory. only your attack plan and timing.

It's kind of entertaining that you'd tell Magus that Smash isn't the game for him.

Combos are combos. Defining things that aren't combos as combos is wrong, just call those for what they are - hitting people around while they choose to not do anything about it. There were plenty of combos in Melee - you could attempt to escape by proper DI to make it harder for someone to combo you, but in the end if they read it correctly and respond accordingly they'll hit you again, you'll still be in hitstun, it'd've read as a consecutive hit in training mode, and it'll be a true combo.

 

[Koga]

It's kind of entertaining that you'd tell Magus that Smash isn't the game for him.

Combos are combos. Defining things that aren't combos as combos is wrong, just call those for what they are - hitting people around while they choose to not do anything about it. There were plenty of combos in Melee - you could attempt to escape by proper DI to make it harder for someone to combo you, but in the end if they read it correctly and respond accordingly they'll hit you again, you'll still be in hitstun, it'd've read as a consecutive hit in training mode, and it'll be a true combo.

I mean smash isn't the game for anyone who expects SF like gameplay out of it.


and yes, you're right combos are combos. But that definition was developed from the gameplay of games like SF. Smash is not like them. Its more of an open form fighter about mixups and attack stratgies than combo placement. They are a closed form fighter more about positioning timing and execution.

I'm saying that smash is a different level of fighting. Yes, 64 and melee had more hitstun but the system the game has for winning and losing can't suport a hitstun system and stay balanced for ever. that's why i think they scaled the hitstun down alot in the last two games in the first place. That's why i propose we use the term "Smash combo" or "smash Chain" when refering to smash like combo's built on superior mixup ability of the player.

Smash is so different because attack properties matter 1000 times more in smash then other fighters. in traditional fighters damage and hitstun are all that matters as fars as valuble attack properties are concerned. I don't need to explain how much different the attack properties in smash are and how they are relevant.

if you haven't watch video's of smash 64 pros. they just play positioning and the combo from 0%-death. the hitstun was rediculous.

there's nothing wrong with games like that, but that's not how smash's system is built. stuff like that is far to dangerous to any meta game and that's why its ok for smash to have "smash combos" and not "SF combos"

 

[Dark Sonic]

Dude, did you just tell Magus that smash is not the game for him.

GTFO.

Also, the problem with brawl is not prediction. The problem with brawl is punishing. If the opponent makes a mistake, they deserve to be put at a disadvantage. However in brawl, they are back on even ground after one hit. IMO, one guaranteed hit is not enough incentive to make me approach. I'd rather just sit back and camp because it is both less risky and more rewarding at the same time. However, if I can guarantee something like 4 hits, or an attack that will link into a KO move, then suddenly forcing an oppening seems a lot more viable. Melee hit the perfect balance between defense and offense, as aggressive play could be just as effective (if not more effective) than defensive play, and at that point it was only a matter of personal preference.

Combos exist not just to look flashy, but to punish a player that makes a mistake, and to give a player who practices a very visible and even tangible advantage.

Risk and Reward guys.

 

[NeBz]

"n00b friendly" =/= "balanced"

A game is in fact less fair, and more unbalanced when a less experienced player has a chance against a more experienced player. The better player should be winning, and there's a problem if they're not. Melee rewarded smart, skillful play doublefold by making it harder to punish better players, and with difficult combos that skillful players could pull off if their opponents made mistakes. It has already been demonstrated that, at least from a combo perspective, Brawl does not do this.

Brawl's system of punishment is much more dependent on spacing and position, and the player with the positional advantage can punish his or her opponent accordingly. However, his or her options are still limited to moves that will either maintain his or her advantage, or restore the match to equilibrium, often times leaving out options that will be more damaging. In effect, Brawl is less deep for ultimately limiting options, and punishing aggressive play. It becomes very defensive as a result, as has been said already in this thread.

QFT!

Brawl is in no way deeper than Melee. Not even close.

 

[Card]

Brawl is in no way deeper than Melee. Not even close.

Seriously... We have enough threads clogging up this boards.

The OP asked a legitimate question involving the definition of a Combo, which didn't even have ANYTHING to do with Smash Melee being deeper or more shallow than Brawl, yet somehow you guys managed to derail it into that. Just stop before this thread gets even more ugly.

 

[Koga]

Dude, did you just tell Magus that smash is not the game for him.

GTFO.

Also, the problem with brawl is not prediction. The problem with brawl is punishing. If the opponent makes a mistake, they deserve to be put at a disadvantage. However in brawl, they are back on even ground after one hit. IMO, one guaranteed hit is not enough incentive to make me approach. I'd rather just sit back and camp because it is both less risky and more rewarding at the same time. However, if I can guarantee something like 4 hits, or an attack that will link into a KO move, then suddenly forcing an oppening seems a lot more viable. Melee hit the perfect balance between defense and offense, as aggressive play could be just as effective (if not more effective) than defensive play, and at that point it was only a matter of personal preference.

Combos exist not just to look flashy, but to punish a player that makes a mistake, and to give a player who practices a very visible and even tangible advantage.

Risk and Reward guys.

I wasn't talking to Magus directly, but again, anyone who expects SF like gameplay out of smash needs to play SF and not smash.

also something else needs to be said about the health bar system vs the stock system. In HB games a combo that takes 1/4 of your health away< losing a stock in a 4 stock match. This is because in a health bar system 1/4 of your life equals 1/4 of a stock not an entire stock. Games like SF and GG it takes two KOs to win a game and they usually play best 3 out of five or 2 out of 3. Even in smash if we do this an entire stock in relation to the match is whole lot bigger punishment than a significant amount of HB. also, most HB games have a way of recovering health, there is no way to recover stock.

Punishment in smash is just as it should be. If i wiff one attack there is no reason i should lose a stock. 20% maybe, but not an entire stock.

a stock advantage in smash is way more of an advantage than a health advantage in a HB game. If you combo 1/4 of my life away we are now back on equal ground, i can possibly now combo 1/2 of your life away and then you preforme your super which recovers some health. In Smash if i have a stock advantage i can come at you with out any thought of risk. As far as risk Vs reward, if i have a stock on you i can completely open up my book of attacks and not care what you do. I can take some hits and even lose a stock my self and im still in the advantaged position. That's way to big a reward for you whiffing an attack.

but again its all opinion so don't divide the community over yours. If you want SF like play then go play SF.

 

[Dark Sonic]

also something else needs to be said about the health bar system vs the stock system. In HB games a combo that takes 1/4 of your health away< losing a stock in a 4 stock match.

This is true. Mathmatically 1/2 health in a fighting game would equal 1 stock in melee, because of how the rounds systems work, which you explained below. Now then, do other fighting games have combos that take away more than half of your health?

Yes they do.

This is because in a health bar system 1/4 of your life equals 1/4 of a stock not an entire stock.

1/4 of a health bar equals somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of your stock.

If you go by the minimum number of rounds then (assuming the same player wins all matches)

2 lives per round times 2 rounds out of three equals 4 health bars. 4 stock per round times 2 rounds equals 8 stock. 1/4 healthbar=1/2 stock in this scenerio.

However, if you go by the maximum (assuming you go back and forth)

3 lives per round times 5 rounds equals 15 health bars. 4 stock per round times 5 rounds equals 20 stock. 1/4 healthbar=1/3 stock in this scenerio.

So, lets say that on average you live to about 90-100% in melee (excluding gimp kills). This means that a 1/4 health bar combo in another fighting game would translate to a 30-33% combo in melee. However, that's for small mistakes (like spacing slightly off so you don't sweetspot0. The bigger mistakes (missing laggy attacks while close to your opponent) recieve much more punishment.

Punishment in smash is just as it should be. If i wiff one attack there is no reason i should lose a stock. 20% maybe, but not an entire stock.

You should also not be able to escape punishment after a single hit, which does nowhere near that 30% I listed above. Is a guaranteed three hit combo cruel and unusual punishment? What happened to the whole "don't get hit" philosophy. You know, the idea that mistakes are bad and that you should strive for perfection?

a stock advantage in smash is way more of an advantage than a health advantage in a HB game.

And most of the time you don't have a full stock advantage. Most of the time you're at somewhere between 60-80% when they die, which is an easy advantage to overcome. You come back invincible for a full 2 seconds, giving you ample time to give yourself an advantageous position. What you're referring to, is the 0-death combos, which is about the same as a 1/2-2/3 HB combo in any other fighter. That kind of advantage is hard to overcome in either game.

If you combo 1/4 of my life away we are now back on equal ground, i can possibly now combo 1/2 of your life away and then you preforme your super which recovers some health.

Just as if you combo me to 50% I can come back with a zero to death and use good DI to live past the 100% death zone.

In Smash if i have a stock advantage i can come at you with out any thought of risk.

Oh really http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lIcE_-tWv8
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you still have to work a little.

As far as risk Vs reward, if i have a stock on you i can completely open up my book of attacks and not care what you do. I can take some hits and even lose a stock my self and im still in the advantaged position.

That's only if you have a full stock lead. That would be similar to having a 1/2 HB lead in a fighting game.

That's way to big a reward for you whiffing an attack.

That's a reward for me whiffing an attack, and then having predictable or improper DI.

Not only that, but it only happens when the attacks that you whiff are laggy enough for your opponent to successfully set up such a punishment. How often does Marth get zero-death'd from missing a fair? You allowed your opponent to land a particularly useful combo move. If the opponent has a large array of such moves, then it is a character balancing issue, not a game engine issue.

but again its all opinion so don't divide the community over yours. If you want SF like play then go play SF.

Or, you can stop making assumtions about my game preferences. You assume that I want to play a game like SF, when I like smash specifically because of it's unique system. Percentages instead of life bars means that good DI can actually make you live longer, and good prediction can actually make your opponent live shorter (health wise). The general freedom of movement and edgeguarding dynamics also have very good appeal.

But then again, this is all personal opinion, so don't divide the community over yours.

 

[2DLogic]

If a series of attacks is escapable at any point it is no longer a combo after said point... call it an attack set, call it a "smash chain", call it a series, call it whatever you want, as long as you know it's not a true combo. How a character is ko'ed or what measure of stamina they have left makes no difference to the definition of a combo. At the end of the day, Smash is still a fighting game, and as such the traditional definition of a combo is still applicable and correct.

 

[Koga]

This is true. Mathmatically 1/2 health in a fighting game would equal 1 stock in melee, because of how the rounds systems work, which you explained below. Now then, do other fighting games have combos that take away more than half of your health?

Yes they do.

1/4 of a health bar equals somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of your stock.

If you go by the minimum number of rounds then (assuming the same player wins all matches)

2 lives per round times 2 rounds out of three equals 4 health bars. 4 stock per round times 2 rounds equals 8 stock. 1/4 healthbar=1/2 stock in this scenerio.

However, if you go by the maximum (assuming you go back and forth)

3 lives per round times 5 rounds equals 15 health bars. 4 stock per round times 5 rounds equals 20 stock. 1/4 healthbar=1/3 stock in this scenerio.

So, lets say that on average you live to about 90-100% in melee (excluding gimp kills). This means that a 1/4 health bar combo in another fighting game would translate to a 30-33% combo in melee. However, that's for small mistakes (like spacing slightly off so you don't sweetspot0. The bigger mistakes (missing laggy attacks while close to your opponent) recieve much more punishment.
You should also not be able to escape punishment after a single hit, which does nowhere near that 30% I listed above. Is a guaranteed three hit combo cruel and unusual punishment? What happened to the whole "don't get hit" philosophy. You know, the idea that mistakes are bad and that you should strive for perfection?
And most of the time you don't have a full stock advantage. Most of the time you're at somewhere between 60-80% when they die, which is an easy advantage to overcome. You come back invincible for a full 2 seconds, giving you ample time to give yourself an advantageous position. What you're referring to, is the 0-death combos, which is about the same as a 1/2-2/3 HB combo in any other fighter. That kind of advantage is hard to overcome in either game.
Just as if you combo me to 50% I can come back with a zero to death and use good DI to live past the 100% death zone.
Oh really http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lIcE_-tWv8
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you still have to work a little.
That's only if you have a full stock lead. That would be similar to having a 1/2 HB lead in a fighting game.
That's a reward for me whiffing an attack, and then having predictable or improper DI.

Not only that, but it only happens when the attacks that you whiff are laggy enough for your opponent to successfully set up such a punishment. How often does Marth get zero-death'd from missing a fair? You allowed your opponent to land a particularly useful combo move. If the opponent has a large array of such moves, then it is a character balancing issue, not a game engine issue.
Or, you can stop making assumtions about my game preferences. You assume that I want to play a game like SF, when I like smash specifically because of it's unique system. Percentages instead of life bars means that good DI can actually make you live longer, and good prediction can actually make your opponent live shorter (health wise). The general freedom of movement and edgeguarding dynamics also have very good appeal.

But then again, this is all personal opinion, so don't divide the community over yours.

Ok, suppose i use good DI and live longer than 150% all your arguments fall apart. There are too many variables in smash to calculate Punishment on even your scale. there is no guranteed kill % but there is a guranteed amount of damage you must deal in the HB system. and even combo's that take half of your health away are usually done by very slow characters and require some EX super to do that.

Im not dividing the community. People who say how shallow and bad the game is are. I'm saying take the game for what it is and recognize how it works rather than try to tie it to another game for defining its worth.

 

[Tirno]

Please don't argue semantics. There is no be all end all to words, they're whatever we make them. It doesn't matter what you think "true" combos or consecutive hits are traditionally defined as, "dog" used to mean a specific type of dog, but that doesn't stop anyone from using it the way we do now. Words are whatever we make them, the only possible criteria that can really be applied are how ambiguous/transparent and how fitting/unfitting your definitions are. Changing the words doesn't change the arguments about Brawl and Melee.

With those criteria in mind, it shouldn't be that difficult to define. In smash, to prevent ambiguity, combos should be thought of as consecutive hits while your opponent is still stunned from an attack/throw/etc.. This definition encompasses the almost-inescapable quality of smash combos while not precluding factors like DI or even teching on a platform to escape. Other types of consecutive hits are usually just techchasing or catching your opponent repeatedly even in an unstunned state (AKA following/prediction). This is how I've always thought of it.

 

[Dark Sonic]

Ok, suppose i use good DI and live longer than 150% all your arguments fall apart.

Percentages instead of life bars means that good DI can actually make you live longer, and good prediction can actually make your opponent live shorter (health wise)

Dude, I just said that. Good DI means that the percentage done by attacks is relatively less punishment than if you were to have bad DI.

there is no guranteed kill % but there is a guranteed amount of damage you must deal in the HB system.

Actually, some games let the opponent reduce the amount of damage dealt (Melty Blood, Naruto)

and even combo's that take half of your health away are usually done by very slow characters and require some EX super to do that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ImrFSTuY8
Really?

Im not dividing the community. People who say how shallow and bad the game is are. I'm saying take the game for what it is and recognize how it works rather than try to tie it to another game for defining its worth.

And I'm just refuting the idea that combos are shallow, and note how combos actually add a lot of depth to the game as an offense/defense balancing mechanism. I'm taking the game for what it is, and noting that it's lacking combos. The same effect would apply if I were to say that other fighting games are also a bit lacking in defensive options.


The first comment in the original post you quoted was sarcastic. I wasn't trying to flame you.

The rest of the post was to show the other side of the arguement. That combos are what give you sufficient reward for predicting an opponent. Without them, the defensive player will have the advantage the majority of the time, which balancewise I think is flawed. It's not an insurmountable advantage, but it's there.

Pointing out flaws can be considered negative, but at the same time denying their existance can be just as bad. There are some potential fixes for the lack of guaranteed combos in brawl, but it's really just substituting one kind of depth with another. In brawl you have to successfully predict your opponent on each and every hit in order to chain attacks, and it is possible. Your games will focus much more on learning individual matchups and learning the range of each character. This is indeed depth. It's just a different kind. Rather than learning which moves combo into other moves at which percentages, ect. you'll have to learn which moves outrange which other moves, which moves to use when you get hit, ect. But that was present in melee too, it just wasn't the sole area to improve in.

 

[Crizthakidd]

i dont like chess, therefore i dont like brawl

 

[chansen]

combo: consecutive hits on an opponent that usually ends in their death. Usually without any hits back from the opponent.

not too hard, and why are we talking about depth now?

back on topic....possibly?

sometimes just giving your opinion is better than takin the time to be right.