Why are Smash players so concerned with "advanced techniques?"

[Judo777]

ATs are cool. When you start multishining someone's shield, that's sending a message. "You're not on my level".


You'd be surprised. Yes, nair is safe on shield, but there are more defensive options in Melee than just shielding, you know. If you avoid a nair approach by wavedashing or dash dancing out of the way, you can easily grab the landing lag, and against Fox, a good grab can often lead to a stock. You should only ever nair if your opponent is cornered, you have a read on where they're going to be, or you've conditioned them to shield. This is what happens if you just throw out moves hail mary.

My issue is that, that option you just described is a hard read. Like that's a solid 1 second in advance prediction. In brawl (and most other fighters) predictions like that result in huge out of the ordinary punishes. In melee you HAVE to make gigantic reads and take extra precautions to deal with...... the most basic pressure options in the game. It would be like (in street fighter) saying "all you have to do to deal with pokes, is to reliably counter hit them" when in reality counter hitting your opponent results in extra stun and usually huge punishes, because it is a pretty substantial read.

This is opinionated (though I'd be hard pressed for someone to convince me otherwise) blocking (or in brawls case shielding), should always be the most basic defensive option. That's why they always come out frame 1, and should usually result in relatively neutral position on a successful block (at least from max range of your opponents faster options). That's the essential rock paper scissors. Attack beats grab, block beats attack, grab beats block. And they should be equal WITH RESPECT TO HOW EASY THEY ARE TO LAND. So any attack that is about as easy to land as a grab, should be relatively neutralized (or even punished by) a successful block, and accordingly for each other option. Granted there are ways that you can manipulate each option to beat its counter option with a little bit of prediction (pivot grabbing behind your opponent so they cannot retaliate with a jab, using a stronger slower attack that is safe on shield, or reading the grab and spot dodging out of shield). But at base level that is the rock paper scissors of the game (and should be IMO).

In melee shield seems to get completely destroyed by so many attack options, that the game becomes "just don't be in a spot where you have to block the move," which is frustrating because that is usually the same mentality tied with what should be SIGNIFICANTLY worse positions such as "just don't be offstage without a double jump."

 

[JediLink]

My issue is that, that option you just described is a hard read. Like that's a solid 1 second in advance prediction. In brawl (and most other fighters) predictions like that result in huge out of the ordinary punishes. In melee you HAVE to make gigantic reads and take extra precautions to deal with...... the most basic pressure options in the game. It would be like (in street fighter) saying "all you have to do to deal with pokes, is to reliably counter hit them" when in reality counter hitting your opponent results in extra stun and usually huge punishes, because it is a pretty substantial read.

Lol wtf, dash dancing isn't a hard read. It's what you're already doing all the time.

This is opinionated (though I'd be hard pressed for someone to convince me otherwise) blocking (or in brawls case shielding), should always be the most basic defensive option. That's why they always come out frame 1, and should usually result in relatively neutral position on a successful block (at least from max range of your opponents faster options). That's the essential rock paper scissors. Attack beats grab, block beats attack, grab beats block. And they should be equal WITH RESPECT TO HOW EASY THEY ARE TO LAND. So any attack that is about as easy to land as a grab, should be relatively neutralized (or even punished by) a successful block, and accordingly for each other option. Granted there are ways that you can manipulate each option to beat its counter option with a little bit of prediction (pivot grabbing behind your opponent so they cannot retaliate with a jab, using a stronger slower attack that is safe on shield, or reading the grab and spot dodging out of shield). But at base level that is the rock paper scissors of the game (and should be IMO).

In melee shield seems to get completely destroyed by so many attack options, that the game becomes "just don't be in a spot where you have to block the move," which is frustrating because that is usually the same mentality tied with what should be SIGNIFICANTLY worse positions such as "just don't be offstage without a double jump."

When you start using the word "seems", it gives away that you're not really confident in what you're talking about. In Melee, a shield's job is to protect you from attacks, which is exactly what it does. If Fox nairs you and you shield it, you don't take damage, and you don't lose your position on the stage. You do take a bit of shield damage, but that's not really a big deal. After a blocked shine, the situation becomes pretty close to neutral (although admittedly less neutral if you're a low tier with really slow shield options). Believe it or not, while shine is guaranteed from a blocked nair, nothing is guaranteed from a blocked shine except for a frame perfect second shine (which again you can just block over and over until you've been pushed back far enough or Fox does something else). For anything else that Fox does, there's enough break in the shieldstun to either make an escape or possibly attempt a counterattack.

Yes, it's true that they don't call it spacie pressure because it's bad, and there are generally better things to do against Fox than shield, but trust me, Magneto he ain't. You would never say "Oh no, I blocked something, now I can't do anything and I'm going to die." Shielding in Melee is fine.

 

[gmBottles]

I can't speak for everyone, but ATs make the game more fun for me. Sure, it makes the game deeper by adding more movement options, but honestly I just think wavedashing and stuff makes the game more fun. WIthout ATs I couldn't do Bowser's sexy waveland moonwalk.

 

[Judo777]

Lol wtf, dash dancing isn't a hard read. It's what you're already doing all the time.


When you start using the word "seems", it gives away that you're not really confident in what you're talking about. In Melee, a shield's job is to protect you from attacks, which is exactly what it does. If Fox nairs you and you shield it, you don't take damage, and you don't lose your position on the stage. You do take a bit of shield damage, but that's not really a big deal. After a blocked shine, the situation becomes pretty close to neutral (although admittedly less neutral if you're a low tier with really slow shield options). Believe it or not, while shine is guaranteed from a blocked nair, nothing is guaranteed from a blocked shine except for a frame perfect second shine (which again you can just block over and over until you've been pushed back far enough or Fox does something else). For anything else that Fox does, there's enough break in the shieldstun to either make an escape or possibly attempt a counterattack.

Yes, it's true that they don't call it spacie pressure because it's bad, and there are generally better things to do against Fox than shield, but trust me, Magneto he ain't. You would never say "Oh no, I blocked something, now I can't do anything and I'm going to die." Shielding in Melee is fine.

It IS a hard read. Just because you may have been already doing it think of what you actually have to cognitively do to punish the nair with the wave dash back punish. You have to see far enough in advance what your opponent is doing, where he will land, then perform a maneuver that probably takes at least 30 frames, then a punish, that probably takes an additional 8 frames (for some tilt punishes). I mean the frame data alone shows how early you have to predict the option to punish. Marth wave dash backwards forward smash is probably a 40 frame maneuver. So you have to know the punish will work AT LEAST 41 frames in advance to perform such a punish. Where as shield you need to predict your opponent 1 frame in advance of when the move will land in order to successfully perform. So your punish is a SIGNIFCIANLTY harder read than shielding (it has to be performed far more pre-emptively). I wasn't even factoring in that shielding also requires very little geometric information (where you are relative to your opponent) compared to wave dash backwards punish which requires very specific spacing. So it is even more so of a read because at some point you had to mentally calculate the spacing to perform the maneuver, then perform the 40 frame maneuver. (Obviously these numbers aren't exact but they aren't far off I am confident).

And a frame wave perfect shine, looks dangerously close to a one frame off from frame perfect wave shine. Which looks dangerously close to a 2 frames off from frame perfect wave shine. So how am I (as the defender) supposed to know whether they performed it or not? And if they did mess it up by a single frame, because I blocked a nair I am now obligated to execute a frame perfect relief option, that may not even work, because maybe he wasn't a frame off this time.

And NO the primary function of shield is not to not take damage. It is to beat attack. If it does not beat attack, then the rock paper scissors is broken.

 

[JediLink]

It IS a hard read. Just because you may have been already doing it think of what you actually have to cognitively do to punish the nair with the wave dash back punish. You have to see far enough in advance what your opponent is doing, where he will land, then perform a maneuver that probably takes at least 30 frames, then a punish, that probably takes an additional 8 frames (for some tilt punishes). I mean the frame data alone shows how early you have to predict the option to punish. Marth wave dash backwards forward smash is probably a 40 frame maneuver. So you have to know the punish will work AT LEAST 41 frames in advance to perform such a punish. Where as shield you need to predict your opponent 1 frame in advance of when the move will land in order to successfully perform. So your punish is a SIGNIFCIANLTY harder read than shielding (it has to be performed far more pre-emptively). I wasn't even factoring in that shielding also requires very little geometric information (where you are relative to your opponent) compared to wave dash backwards punish which requires very specific spacing. So it is even more so of a read because at some point you had to mentally calculate the spacing to perform the maneuver, then perform the 40 frame maneuver. (Obviously these numbers aren't exact but they aren't far off I am confident).

Just trust me dude, it's not a read. People do it all the time. That's what the point of dash dancing is.

And a frame wave perfect shine, looks dangerously close to a one frame off from frame perfect wave shine. Which looks dangerously close to a 2 frames off from frame perfect wave shine. So how am I (as the defender) supposed to know whether they performed it or not? And if they did mess it up by a single frame, because I blocked a nair I am now obligated to execute a frame perfect relief option, that may not even work, because maybe he wasn't a frame off this time.

And NO the primary function of shield is not to not take damage. It is to beat attack. If it does not beat attack, then the rock paper scissors is broken.

If you love rock paper scissors so much, why don't you just play actual rock paper scissors? Fighting games are complicated, and that's not a bad thing. There's no one perfect solution to getting out of Fox pressure; there are several that have different amounts of risk and reward, just like how there are several ways for the Fox to continue the pressure with again varying amounts of risk and reward. And remember, all of this is off of Fox commiting to an approach which was risky to begin with. If everything was just "This beats this, this beats this, and this beats this, and that's the entire game", then you're not looking at a very deep game.

 

[Judo777]

Just trust me dude, it's not a read. People do it all the time. That's what the point of dash dancing is.


If you love rock paper scissors so much, why don't you just play actual rock paper scissors? Fighting games are complicated, and that's not a bad thing. There's no one perfect solution to getting out of Fox pressure; there are several that have different amounts of risk and reward, just like how there are several ways for the Fox to continue the pressure with again varying amounts of risk and reward. And remember, all of this is off of Fox commiting to an approach which was risky to begin with. If everything was just "This beats this, this beats this, and this beats this, and that's the entire game", then you're not looking at a very deep game.

You completely ignored my entire explanation and replied, "trust me." Yes it happens all the time, games are won with reads. In fact if you don't read your opponent, you shouldn't win. So its frequency of ocuring has nothing to do with anything. If you have to perform it 40 frames in advance..... its a read. no 2 ways about it. You cannot begin a wave dash backward fsmash 1 frame before the moves connects it will never work. you have to do it early, its a read,. It's not even debatable.

Yes the game is complicated all fighters are, but at some face value all fighters boil down to some element of rock paper scissors. Something naturally counters something else, and something else counters it. If it did not, then there would be no reason to do anything at all. if everything counters everything then making a decision doesn't matter. If nothing counters this one thing, its all you should do. Rock Paper Scissors elements are essential to every fighter. And every fighter (including smash games) has rock paper scissors elements (usually involving the 3 i mentioned, grab, attack and block). It just so happens in melee rock (attacking) has a 20% chance (not a real number) of also beating paper (blocking).

 

[JediLink]

You completely ignored my entire explanation and replied, "trust me." Yes it happens all the time, games are won with reads. In fact if you don't read your opponent, you shouldn't win. So its frequency of ocuring has nothing to do with anything. If you have to perform it 40 frames in advance..... its a read. no 2 ways about it. You cannot begin a wave dash backward fsmash 1 frame before the moves connects it will never work. you have to do it early, its a read,. It's not even debatable.

This is the part where I start to wonder if you've ever played competitive Melee before. You're not supposed to both just be standing still and staring at each other when suddenly you decide, "I bet he's going to attack right now, I should dash back". You are always on the move. Every dash forward is an offensive push and every dash back is an defensive retreat. You're not committing to one or the other, you're doing both, all the time. When you're pushing forward into your opponent's space, it's a risk for them to try to attack you because because as soon you start feeling even remotely threatened, you can dash away and be able to easily punish any offensive commitment on reaction. That's why I said a few posts back that you can only nair if you've got a read on where they're going to be, or if you've pushed them into a corner so that the threat of them being able to dash away is removed.

Dashing back is less like a read and more like an option select. If the opponent does attack, you're safe and can punish. If they don't, you're still safe anyway.

Yes the game is complicated all fighters are, but at some face value all fighters boil down to some element of rock paper scissors. Something naturally counters something else, and something else counters it. If it did not, then there would be no reason to do anything at all. if everything counters everything then making a decision doesn't matter. If nothing counters this one thing, its all you should do. Rock Paper Scissors elements are essential to every fighter. And every fighter (including smash games) has rock paper scissors elements (usually involving the 3 i mentioned, grab, attack and block).

Let's think a bit grander for a moment. Chess. Say your opponent, I don't know, moves one of his knights closer to your side of the board. Or does anything. Doesn't really matter. Now what's the counter to that? There isn't one. You can't just look up what beats what, or what the correct counter is, because the reality of the situation is that there are very many things you could possibly do in that moment that will have complicated effects in both the short and long term. That's what we call depth, and that's what allows for such a huge skill gap. Countering your opponent is the surest way to win, but that doesn't mean that that counter has to be simple or easily defined.

Besides, let's not pretend like attack/block/grab even really works. Since when is attacking the one true counter to grabbing? Where does spotdodging come into the equation?

 

[Judo777]

This is the part where I start to wonder if you've ever played competitive Melee before. You're not supposed to both just be standing still and staring at each other when suddenly you decide, "I bet he's going to attack right now, I should dash back". You are always on the move. Every dash forward is an offensive push and every dash back is an defensive retreat. You're not committing to one or the other, you're doing both, all the time. When you're pushing forward into your opponent's space, it's a risk for them to try to attack you because because as soon you start feeling even remotely threatened, you can dash away and be able to easily punish any offensive commitment on reaction. That's why I said a few posts back that you can only nair if you've got a read on where they're going to be, or if you've pushed them into a corner so that the threat of them being able to dash away is removed.

Dashing back is less like a read and more like an option select. If the opponent does attack, you're safe and can punish. If they don't, you're still safe anyway.


Let's think a bit grander for a moment. Chess. Say your opponent, I don't know, moves one of his knights closer to your side of the board. Or does anything. Doesn't really matter. Now what's the counter to that? There isn't one. You can't just look up what beats what, or what the correct counter is, because the reality of the situation is that there are very many things you could possibly do in that moment that will have complicated effects in both the short and long term. That's what we call depth, and that's what allows for such a huge skill gap. Countering your opponent is the surest way to win, but that doesn't mean that that counter has to be simple or easily defined.

Besides, let's not pretend like attack/block/grab even really works. Since when is attacking the one true counter to grabbing? Where does spotdodging come into the equation?

I understand that players are both moving constantly. that doesn't mean that the actions you are taking aren't based off of a read. You are simply dashing backwards because they MIGHT jump forward, not because you know they will. But like you said its an option select because its safe. It doesn't matter its still read based. You are doing that because they COULD move toward you, regardless it is a VERY preemptive action, you have to take the action (for whatever purpose, be it that you do it just because, or because you think they will move into you) early in order for that particular punish to work. You have to being the maneuver at the same time, or even before the opponent does in order for it to work so it is still read based.

In fact the fact that both players have constantly adapted movement that replicates a preemptive counter as we have been discussing, only further emphasizes how powerful offense is in the game. It's so powerful that players have to be playing preemptively defensive most of the match because if they don't preemptively avoid the situation they are in trouble.

Hitting your opponent with a nair has BECOME a read (you have to know where they will be) only because players are forced to move around constantly because of the necessity to take early defensive measures to counter basic offense. It's literally like both payers are playing the entire game around avoiding an extremely common situation, and as a result that said situation has become much more difficult to land.

Chess is not a fighting game, so that doesn't apply at all. Also did you read my last posts? I literally explained all of this last time. Attack/block/grab IS in the other games. And like most other games, if you alter (via positioning, or at the cost of time) your block/attack/grab options they can counter the option that normally counters there (usually at the cost of no lnger countering what it normally counters).

Examples:

I block a laggy attack i get a punish block > attack. the opponent uses extra frame for a move with more shield stun now making it safe now block <= attack. But in using extra frame to beat block, had i just grabbed him during startup it would have landed so in that case block <= attack <grab.

The opponent blocks and I grab grab > block. The opponent blocks and i run to grab but he uses extra frames in advance (and also commits) to a spotdodge (which can only be done from block). My grab misses and i get punished grab <= block. Had i done a slow attack (marth dash attack perhaps) that is easily blocked however I could have punished the spotdodge. So in that example grab <= block , attack.

Me and my opponent are face to face and i initiate a grab, and he initiates an attack that is the same speed (or usually faster) as my grab, my grab loses and i take damage (no grab armor in smash 4). attack > grab. However if i used some additional time to wait for my opponent to swing to hope for whiff punish with a grab, or use positioning to run behind and go for a pivot grab exploiting an aerial blind spot (people did this to marths fair in brawl frequently). Then attack <= grab. However in the first example (waiting extra time for the attack) if your opponent instead blocked immediately then you would first have to run froward to grab and in that time the opponent could have jumped or rolled away essentially forfeiting your grab punish on their block. in that case attack <= grab < block.

There are way to alter each option have some effect on the other options (usually at a cost) but at very face value, both players putting an equal amount of thought (in most the cases i gave almost no thought was given in the first scenario of each line) grab should beat block, block should beat attack, attack should beat grab. That's how its always been in almost every fighter,

My big issue with melee is equal amount of thought placed in attack, beats block WAAAYYYY too often. and as a result both players move around constantly and play the whole game avoiding a block.

 

[Thinkaman]

Melee has a lot of "ambient" movement that substitutes for lackluster mechanically defensive options. It raises the execution barrier significantly, while lowering the signal-to-noise ratio of the inputs. It creates a good effect for spectators though, because it looks like more is happening than actually is.

In fact, many amateur spectators probably miss the actual game going on underneath the constant movements in neutral.

 

[Cazdon]

Melee has a lot of "ambient" movement that substitutes for lackluster mechanically defensive options. It raises the execution barrier significantly, while lowering the signal-to-noise ratio of the inputs. It creates a good effect for spectators though, because it looks like more is happening than actually is.

In fact, many amateur spectators probably miss the actual game going on underneath the constant movements in neutral.

Even when I understand what goes on, I still fall into the illusion. It's a good illusion if you ask me.

 

[gmBottles]

Melee has a lot of "ambient" movement that substitutes for lackluster mechanically defensive options. It raises the execution barrier significantly, while lowering the signal-to-noise ratio of the inputs. It creates a good effect for spectators though, because it looks like more is happening than actually is.

In fact, many amateur spectators probably miss the actual game going on underneath the constant movements in neutral.

That movement is what got me into Melee in the first place. Without Melee's unique movement it wouldn't be as interesting.

 

[Muro]

That movement also has purpose at high levels of play. Trying to downgrade melee's complexity to make sm4sh look better in comparison, pitiful.

 

[Octagon]

That movement is what got me into Melee in the first place. Without Melee's unique movement it wouldn't be as interesting.

Movement...are you serious? That's all it takes to make a game interesting?

 

[gmBottles]

Movement...are you serious? That's all it takes to make a game interesting?

Definitely didn't say that. I meant that it makes it more interesting.

 

[RobinOnDrugs]

People are concerned with advanced techniques because they create more strategies that players can use in a match, and mastering them can result in huge rewards for the player that uses them to their full potential. They allow players to have better control over their characters for the most part.

Sure, they aren't needed to make a game competitive, but they do provide a degree of depth when it comes to learning how to play with a competitive mindset. AT's are part of the reason why you almost need a manual when it comes to learning competitive Melee, especially if you plan on maining characters like Fox.

 

[Eji1700]

That movement is what got me into Melee in the first place. Without Melee's unique movement it wouldn't be as interesting.

And if that movement were easier to do (no L canceling, no fast fall required, easier wave dash/dancing/moonwalking) would you stop watching?

 

[gmBottles]

And if that movement were easier to do (no L canceling, no fast fall required, easier wave dash/dancing/moonwalking) would you stop watching?

Why would that make me want to stop watching? How is me finding the movement options in Smash interesting a bad thing, it's just something I enjoy in the game, and it's what drew me in.

 

[JediLink]

I understand that players are both moving constantly. that doesn't mean that the actions you are taking aren't based off of a read. You are simply dashing backwards because they MIGHT jump forward, not because you know they will. But like you said its an option select because its safe. It doesn't matter its still read based. You are doing that because they COULD move toward you, regardless it is a VERY preemptive action, you have to take the action (for whatever purpose, be it that you do it just because, or because you think they will move into you) early in order for that particular punish to work. You have to being the maneuver at the same time, or even before the opponent does in order for it to work so it is still read based.

In fact the fact that both players have constantly adapted movement that replicates a preemptive counter as we have been discussing, only further emphasizes how powerful offense is in the game. It's so powerful that players have to be playing preemptively defensive most of the match because if they don't preemptively avoid the situation they are in trouble.

Hitting your opponent with a nair has BECOME a read (you have to know where they will be) only because players are forced to move around constantly because of the necessity to take early defensive measures to counter basic offense. It's literally like both payers are playing the entire game around avoiding an extremely common situation, and as a result that said situation has become much more difficult to land.

How is dashing away in Melee any different from holding back to block in a traditional fighter? It's the exact same idea of option selecting for safety with the exact same input. Is it just because you have to do it pre-emptively? Well, what else would you do? React to the startup of the animation?

And I think you're for whatever reason still operating with the assumption that shielding a Fox nair is bad and will get you killed. This ain't 64, yo. Just because shielding isn't ridiculous Brawl/4 levels doesn't mean it's bad. You can lightshield. You can roll away. You can wavedash out of shield. You have tons of options to diffuse a nair approach. You might not necessarily be able to punish back all the time (although a lot of the time you can), but you're safe. That's what shielding in Melee is for.

Let's not forget too that you don't have to do any of this if you just attack first. Dash dancing can be offensive as much as defensive. Overall the neutral game of Fox vs Marth is a lot like Street Fighter footsies, but like Thinkaman said, more spectator friendly because both players are running around hella fast rather than slowly stepping back and forth.

Chess is not a fighting game, so that doesn't apply at all.

Well that's just a lazy dismissal. My point was that when designing a competitive game, the rules can be as simple or complex as you make them. There's no reason why fighting games can't have similarities to chess, especially in terms of things like controlling space and managing resources. Lots of fighting games are like that already.

Also did you read my last posts? I literally explained all of this last time. Attack/block/grab IS in the other games. And like most other games, if you alter (via positioning, or at the cost of time) your block/attack/grab options they can counter the option that normally counters there (usually at the cost of no lnger countering what it normally counters).

Examples:

I block a laggy attack i get a punish block > attack. the opponent uses extra frame for a move with more shield stun now making it safe now block <= attack. But in using extra frame to beat block, had i just grabbed him during startup it would have landed so in that case block <= attack <grab.

The opponent blocks and I grab grab > block. The opponent blocks and i run to grab but he uses extra frames in advance (and also commits) to a spotdodge (which can only be done from block). My grab misses and i get punished grab <= block. Had i done a slow attack (marth dash attack perhaps) that is easily blocked however I could have punished the spotdodge. So in that example grab <= block , attack.

Me and my opponent are face to face and i initiate a grab, and he initiates an attack that is the same speed (or usually faster) as my grab, my grab loses and i take damage (no grab armor in smash 4). attack > grab. However if i used some additional time to wait for my opponent to swing to hope for whiff punish with a grab, or use positioning to run behind and go for a pivot grab exploiting an aerial blind spot (people did this to marths fair in brawl frequently). Then attack <= grab. However in the first example (waiting extra time for the attack) if your opponent instead blocked immediately then you would first have to run froward to grab and in that time the opponent could have jumped or rolled away essentially forfeiting your grab punish on their block. in that case attack <= grab < block.

There are way to alter each option have some effect on the other options (usually at a cost) but at very face value, both players putting an equal amount of thought (in most the cases i gave almost no thought was given in the first scenario of each line) grab should beat block, block should beat attack, attack should beat grab. That's how its always been in almost every fighter,

My big issue with melee is equal amount of thought placed in attack, beats block WAAAYYYY too often. and as a result both players move around constantly and play the whole game avoiding a block.

So your argument is that it's okay for things to exist outside of the simple triangular relationship, except for shield pressure which isn't allowed because... reasons?

If you think attack beats block way too often, god forbid you ever play a fighting game with high-low mixups. "I still got hit even though I was blocking! This game is BROKEN!" Like I said before, I think you're getting Melee and 64 mixed up in your head. Shielding in Melee is fine.

 

[Eji1700]

Why would that make me want to stop watching? How is me finding the movement options in Smash interesting a bad thing, it's just something I enjoy in the game, and it's what drew me in.

Not saying it is a bad thing. More just generally demonstrating the point that just because X thing is interesting does not mean that it's interesting because it is difficult. Wasn't exactly directed at you. Sorry it wasn't clear.

 

[JediLink]

@ Judo777 I feel like this argument has derailed the thread enough so I'll just say this: if you believe that the intended defensive mechanics should be primary rather than secondary to the unintended ones, or that rock/paper/scissors mechanics are important to fighting games, or that Fox is too OP, those are your opinions and I respect that. But I want you to agree with me on one thing. Melee is nothing like Marvel. It annoys me so much when people compare Melee to Marvel because I come from a Marvel background, and quitting Marvel making the full-time switch to Melee was the best thing I've ever done. Melee is infinitely more balanced and less frustrating in every way. **** Marvel lol

 

[gmBottles]

Not saying it is a bad thing. More just generally demonstrating the point that just because X thing is interesting does not mean that it's interesting because it is difficult. Wasn't exactly directed at you. Sorry it wasn't clear.

Oh it's fine. It isn't a difficulty thing or anything, it's the depth and options that wavedashing and stuff gives you that makes it interesting. I probably should have been more clear.

 

[Nobie]

After seeing so many responses, a few things have been clarified for me.

"Advanced Techniques" do not necessarily make a game more or less competitive. They do not necessarily make a game faster or more aggressive. Because the gold standard for competitive Smash is Melee, however, and Melee is a game that was transformed due to things like l-canceling and wavedashing, the general assumption is that they are more likely to hurt than harm a game. Of course, even in Melee this is disputable in some instances (wobbling), and even Brawl players will sometimes lament the loss of their ATs in Smash 4.

What does it mean for a game to be "competitive?" This is I think the core issue, because many people have different ideas as to what the word means, and I think it really affects how they view the concept of an "advanced technique." This is because it is often assumed that an advanced technique either has some fairly difficult (though often not impossible) execution barrier, requires specific pursuit of knowledge that doesn't just come from playing the game or is unintended (seeing a video, reading forums, etc.), or a combination of the two. In the case of the last example, I think it's kind of notable that powershielding is rarely considered an advanced technique, even though it's fairly difficult and speeds up gameplay.

You have execution barriers and knowledge barriers in the form of ATs, but you also have that without ATs. Mastering Peach's float for example might be called an execution barrier, and character knowledge can be obscured by lack of experience. However, what advanced techniques provide is a very tangible goal that, upon mastery, shows a clear differentiation in skill between players. This appeals to people who believe a game is more competitive when there are more ways for a superior player to show how much better they are than an inferior one. Do ATs necessarily make you a better player? Perhaps not, but they give you an edge because whereas the person unable to do them is working with 70% of the rulebook, you have 100% of it. For those who are your peer and also have mastered the ATs, they represent the next stage of your growth in skill and competition. You've entered the next level.

However, there's another way of thinking about how to make a game "competitive," and that is by making a game's competitive aspect more accessible. In other words, according to this perspective, a game is competitive when as many people as possible can be equipped to compete within it. This can happen either because a game's rules are easy and intuitive enough that people can get a grasp on the situation, or because the knowledge and rules necessary to begin to compete are so ingrained in a society that you just naturally learn it (many sports are this way). From that perspective, the "advanced technique" is an issue because the very idea that someone is playing with only 70% of the rulebook while the other has all 100% of it does not make a game competitive because the arena in which skill is tested is uneven. From this view, it is a mastery of fundamentals that is most appealing.

Of course, there are many gradients between these two ways of thinking, and none of the Smash games necessarily fall to one extreme or the other. Rather, certain games in the franchise will appeal to one type more than another, and the capacity for a game to have "advanced techniques" becomes a very obvious area with which to try and identify a game's competitive potential and competitive "fun." Again, because the Smash community developed as a result of the sharing of "advanced techniques," it's become ingrained in the culture, acting almost as a rite of passage. It doesn't necessarily mean you've become as skilled as the greatest players, or that you'll be able to have both the excellent physical/technical skill and the brains/knowledge to become the best, but you now exist in the same country, as you've crossed over into from the land of the casual into the realm of the competitive. The big question then is, is it better for the barrier between casual and competitive to be a bridge, or a wall?

 

[Emblem Lord]

@ JediLink Judo is making valid points. Do not simply disregard them because of love for Melee. Be objective. Melee IS flawed.

All fighters are flawed as they are made by humans and we as humans are extremely flawed.

The game is fun as hell, but what he is saying has valid points. Keep that in mind.

Melee and Marvel do have similarities. They are not the same, but for you a former Marvel player to jump into Melee and feel right at home is very telling is it not? You are coming from the most broken series in fighting game history. So is it not possible that its easy for you to overlook alot of Melee's nonsense?

Food for thought.

 

[DavemanCozy]

Smash players have some of the worst tunnel vision I've ever seen. They think using AT alone makes them good.

This is imo the best answer in this thread.

I ran into a For Glory player last night who had the smoothest pivots and "dash-dances" (what qualifies as dash dancing in this game), but he simply didn't know which moves were safe on shield and he kept getting punished. In fact, I don't think he tried grabbing me once.

 

[JediLink]

@ JediLink Judo is making valid points. Do not simply disregard them because of love for Melee. Be objective. Melee IS flawed.

All fighters are flawed as they are made by humans and we as humans are extremely flawed.

The game is fun as hell, but what he is saying has valid points. Keep that in mind.

Hell nah dude, Melee da bes

Melee and Marvel do have similarities. They are not the same, but for you a former Marvel player to jump into Melee and feel right at home is very telling is it not? You are coming from the most broken series in fighting game history. So is it not possible that its easy for you to overlook alot of Melee's nonsense?

Food for thought.

I'm not sure where you're getting that idea from. I got into Melee because I've been playing it casually all my life, not because of Marvel. Marvel helped me with very little. There's no assists in Melee, no X-Factor, no chicken blocking, no giant fullscreen hitboxes, no unavoidable unblockable setups, no spammable teleports, no infinites that almost every character can do, no chip damage, nothing like that at all. In UMvC3, it's not be unusual to see a match won in the first five seconds, while the rest of the game is spent with one player locked down in the corner who can do nothing but futily mash advancing guard while all three of their characters are mauled before their eyes. Sometimes that even happens three times in a row - triple perfect. When's the last time you've seen a triple JV5 in Melee?

 

[Swamp Sensei]

That movement also has purpose at high levels of play. Trying to downgrade melee's complexity to make sm4sh look better in comparison, pitiful.

He wasn't trying to downgrade it.

He's just calling a cat, a cat.

The movement has purpose, but its just a tool for what's going on mentally.

The movement alone will get you 4 stocked.

 

[Emblem Lord]

JediLink - You sure like to take things literally, huh? Obviously the games aren't isn't exactly the same. Their engines are completely different and based on different concepts. But the idea that Marvel is about little to no commitment in neutral and conversion into huge game ending reward is very much the same. The pacing and the how footsies is conducted (mostly movement based and throwing out moves with virtually no commitment) is very similar.

 

[JediLink]

JediLink - You sure like to take things literally, huh? Obviously the games aren't isn't exactly the same. Their engines are completely different and based on different concepts. But the idea that Marvel is about little to no commitment in neutral and conversion into huge game ending reward is very much the same. The pacing and the how footsies is conducted (mostly movement based and throwing out moves with virtually no commitment) is very similar.

I wasn't just listing game mechanics for no reason, dude. I was listing the things that make Marvel what it it's famous for - being broken as ****. I thought unavoidable unblockable setups at least would have given you the idea. Also I hope you realise that concepts like having low-risk pokes and being rewarded for winning in neutral are not unusual as far as fighting games go. The defensive, neutral-focused, war-of-attrition type gameplay is far more rare. Not to say there's anything wrong with that kind of gameplay if that's what you prefer, but you should not be basing your perspective with that as being "normal".

EDIT: And on that note, there's nothing wrong with Marvel either if that's what you enjoy. I just don't. Marvel is only fun to me with mid/low tiers.

 

[Donkeybutter]

People are so obsessed with AT's because they allow for more options in gameplay, and combined they usually allow for a deeper metagame to emerge within each smash game.

Melee for example would be near unrecognizable without players utilizing AT's in their gameplay. People seem to always be looking for "the new wavedash" or ways to reduce landing lag in Smash 4 because many Melee/PM players feel that Smash 4 is restricted by a relative lack of movement options and too much landing lag on attacks.

I don't think most ppl necessarily just have a fetish for AT's because they're hard to do, but because they just want more out of the game. Since the game doesn't intentionally provide a way to do things wavedash or lower landing lag across the board, players look toward exploiting the hidden aspects of the game's engine to find them.

Since smash is primarily designed to be a casual game, a lot players feel that just working with what the developers intended is not enough to satisfy them. AT's are seen as a workaround to the intentional simplicity of smash, and I think many feel that without complex AT's to offer better options, Smash 4 is too casually designed to be a deep competitive game on the level of Melee or PM.

 

[Master Knight DH]

I just need to say something.

Do you want the cold, hard, truth?

Because the idea of something you can use to prove you are better at a video game just by knowing it, while retaining all the surface trappings of abstract concepts like "skill" and "depth", appeals to a lot of people.

Oh hey, you could do this by learning about a character's anti-armor.

This has always been one of the smash communities biggest problems. Dudes know how to do all this technical stuff, but don't know what a safe poke is, spacing, air-dodge traps or the basics of the neutral game. Smashers always try to fly rocket ships before they can even crawl.

It's the number one reason players in this community hit plateaus.

Ironically, a few risks is how you learn stuff. This still doesn't invalidate your point, of course. Anti-armor works a lot better when it comes out of the blue. I'm sure you can take a wild guess how you make sure that happens.

I disagree. Shields are not overwhelmingly powerful.....they get beaten by grabs which are REALLY powerful because they lead to combos and advantageous position. When a player shields they commit to standing in place and doing nothing until the other player does an attack, and if they choose to not wait then they put themselves in a rock paper scissors situation that the OTHER player gets to setup because he is allowed to move.

My problem with melee (and other games like it, for instance MVC3) is that you are allowed to push for an advantage that you did almost nothing to earn. Like you punish an advantage because i blocked your EASIEST to connect with move, and now I have to get out of a bad spot? I blocked foxes nair....... now i get to deal with tons of pressure, which i guess he earned because he hit my shield with his easiest to land move on my shield..... marvel is sort of the same way, well i blocked your jam session....... now i get to deal with you pressure because i blocked a move that is extremely easy to land.

Ayup. That's why zoning moves shouldn't be rewarded so much, except MAYBE on those pesky lightweights who like to evade everything else anyway. Center control should indeed be emphasized. What shouldn't be is attack-attack-attack, which is FAR from the same thing. This isn't to advocate simple turtling or stupidity like shieldspam. This is to point out that something has to be done to keep a player from reaching the center first to simply win, rather than win by holding the center for extended periods instead, which by the way ideally would be variable between characters for good measure.

I ought to provide a list of why armor busters being encouraged is healthy for a game--this list assumes they don't cross into their own individual stupidity:
*Armors get armor busters' innate Counter Play to work with
*Zoning moves can afford to be nerfed to much less abusable levels without crippling the character
*Players want to learn the character's variety to handle armor busters
*Landing armor busters has a healthy sense of satisfaction. (Can you imagine Falcon Punch being nearly as impressive to people if it were a frame 1 hitbox move?)

Now this doesn't make the idea of something like Ness's PSI Thunder Missile being safe on block a good idea all of a sudden, but when Sheik is a character I would suggest a buff for (namely that her Side B's burst should kill at around 100% on BOWSER, AFTER widening weight gaps), that should tell you how much I'd rather see the whole thing not suck.

There's already 1128 matchups counting the 2 Pits together and discounting the Miis. There's plenty to learn when players get interested. "Advanced" techniques only serve to overcomplicate the whole thing.

 

[Judo777]

How is dashing away in Melee any different from holding back to block in a traditional fighter? It's the exact same idea of option selecting for safety with the exact same input. Is it just because you have to do it pre-emptively? Well, what else would you do? React to the startup of the animation?

And I think you're for whatever reason still operating with the assumption that shielding a Fox nair is bad and will get you killed. This ain't 64, yo. Just because shielding isn't ridiculous Brawl/4 levels doesn't mean it's bad. You can lightshield. You can roll away. You can wavedash out of shield. You have tons of options to diffuse a nair approach. You might not necessarily be able to punish back all the time (although a lot of the time you can), but you're safe. That's what shielding in Melee is for.

Let's not forget too that you don't have to do any of this if you just attack first. Dash dancing can be offensive as much as defensive. Overall the neutral game of Fox vs Marth is a lot like Street Fighter footsies, but like Thinkaman said, more spectator friendly because both players are running around hella fast rather than slowly stepping back and forth.


Well that's just a lazy dismissal. My point was that when designing a competitive game, the rules can be as simple or complex as you make them. There's no reason why fighting games can't have similarities to chess, especially in terms of things like controlling space and managing resources. Lots of fighting games are like that already.


So your argument is that it's okay for things to exist outside of the simple triangular relationship, except for shield pressure which isn't allowed because... reasons?

If you think attack beats block way too often, god forbid you ever play a fighting game with high-low mixups. "I still got hit even though I was blocking! This game is BROKEN!" Like I said before, I think you're getting Melee and 64 mixed up in your head. Shielding in Melee is fine.

It's not like holding back to block, because its evasive. Evasiveness doesn't actually ever deal with the move. It just avoids it. You have forfeit stage to evade, blocking you get to hold your ground. That is how they are different.

And no I know you aren't killed when you block a nair. But you shouldn't be punished so heavily for it. Literally foxes nair is probably the single easiest move in his arsenal to land (it's big, it can be done out of a jump, its beats a lot of stuff, its comes out fast). You get pressured and punished for doing nothing wrong. It's very similar to blocking a banana in brawl and smash 4 from diddy. The difference is fox doesn't have to spend 3 seconds setting it up, and once diddy has the banana in hand he has limited a ton of his options, while fox has all of his options in situations where he can nair. (Btw I don't think Fox is OP because I feel lots of the cast has stuff like that).

It was lazy dismissal because the game you described is so incredibly different from fighting games its not even comparable. Things are allowed to be balanced by incredible difficulty in performing (although in many cases things aren't near as hard as they need to be). It is fair for you to get punished because you didn't react fast enough. You should get ruined for missed inputs. None of that exists in chess.

Shield pressure can exist and SHOULD exist. But it has to be EARNED. Landing you easiest to land move is not EARNING pressure. A risky jump in that your opponent can react to 100% of the time and requires no advanced preparation, is an EARNED pressure situation. Getting a strong positional advantage due to a previous hit is EARNED advantage. Hitting your opponent because they didn't already begin their counter measure to this particular instance 45 frames ago is not EARNED at all.

People can spend the whole game watching for that one thing (by staying mobile and never being in range for a sh nair to land, or by including the first 30 frames of the counter measure into something they do the whole match) thus making it much riskier and harder to land, that doesn't mean its not still an issue. You can spend the whole game never being in range of IC's grab range and make them going for the grab risky, doesn't mean that IC's grab is a well designed mechanic.

And you have to block correctly to beat attacks so high low mixups aren't unfair. Most of the time they have to be setup, very few people just get high low mixups for nothing (except marvel).

Block is just much weaker in melee than it is in almost every fighter that I know of (But not as bad as Marvel). As a result attacking ALOT is heavily encouraged in Melee.

 

[JediLink]

It's not like holding back to block, because its evasive. Evasiveness doesn't actually ever deal with the move. It just avoids it. You have forfeit stage to evade, blocking you get to hold your ground. That is how they are different.

And no I know you aren't killed when you block a nair. But you shouldn't be punished so heavily for it. Literally foxes nair is probably the single easiest move in his arsenal to land (it's big, it can be done out of a jump, its beats a lot of stuff, its comes out fast). You get pressured and punished for doing nothing wrong. It's very similar to blocking a banana in brawl and smash 4 from diddy. The difference is fox doesn't have to spend 3 seconds setting it up, and once diddy has the banana in hand he has limited a ton of his options, while fox has all of his options in situations where he can nair. (Btw I don't think Fox is OP because I feel lots of the cast has stuff like that).

It was lazy dismissal because the game you described is so incredibly different from fighting games its not even comparable. Things are allowed to be balanced by incredible difficulty in performing (although in many cases things aren't near as hard as they need to be). It is fair for you to get punished because you didn't react fast enough. You should get ruined for missed inputs. None of that exists in chess.

Shield pressure can exist and SHOULD exist. But it has to be EARNED. Landing you easiest to land move is not EARNING pressure. A risky jump in that your opponent can react to 100% of the time and requires no advanced preparation, is an EARNED pressure situation. Getting a strong positional advantage due to a previous hit is EARNED advantage. Hitting your opponent because they didn't already begin their counter measure to this particular instance 45 frames ago is not EARNED at all.

People can spend the whole game watching for that one thing (by staying mobile and never being in range for a sh nair to land, or by including the first 30 frames of the counter measure into something they do the whole match) thus making it much riskier and harder to land, that doesn't mean its not still an issue. You can spend the whole game never being in range of IC's grab range and make them going for the grab risky, doesn't mean that IC's grab is a well designed mechanic.

And you have to block correctly to beat attacks so high low mixups aren't unfair. Most of the time they have to be setup, very few people just get high low mixups for nothing (except marvel).

Block is just much weaker in melee than it is in almost every fighter that I know of (But not as bad as Marvel). As a result attacking ALOT is heavily encouraged in Melee.

No. That's all I have to say because I don't want to argue this anymore. Feel free to reread my previous posts where I explained all of this already.

 

[Master Knight DH]

I need to Bold response to this.

It's not like holding back to block, because its evasive. Evasiveness doesn't actually ever deal with the move. It just avoids it. You have forfeit stage to evade, blocking you get to hold your ground. That is how they are different.
Funny how it can be expected on standard in a game that evasion would, at least be meant to, require more skill but stops damage altogether. That's an interesting way to look at it though.

And no I know you aren't killed when you block a nair. But you shouldn't be punished so heavily for it. Literally foxes nair is probably the single easiest move in his arsenal to land (it's big, it can be done out of a jump, its beats a lot of stuff, its comes out fast). You get pressured and punished for doing nothing wrong. It's very similar to blocking a banana in brawl and smash 4 from diddy. The difference is fox doesn't have to spend 3 seconds setting it up, and once diddy has the banana in hand he has limited a ton of his options, while fox has all of his options in situations where he can nair. (Btw I don't think Fox is OP because I feel lots of the cast has stuff like that).
The problem with "if everybody is special then nobody is special" is that it inevitably stops applying and something ends up standing out. It's more welcome in a game's balance that one character pulls degenerate gameplay than everybody does.

Full agreement about that paragraph's general argument though.

It was lazy dismissal because the game you described is so incredibly different from fighting games its not even comparable. Things are allowed to be balanced by incredible difficulty in performing (although in many cases things aren't near as hard as they need to be). It is fair for you to get punished because you didn't react fast enough. You should get ruined for missed inputs. None of that exists in chess.
I ought to point out that Chess's local Fragile Speedster, the Bishop, has a critical weakness in being permanently on the same color space type. It allows Pawns to wall by covering each other and their superiors that way, and vital guys like the King to stop attacks on them just by changing space color.

Of course, you are right that this isn't Chess, but the punishment for missing inputs or reaction failure should be kept variable. Not every player OR character can feasibly work off of pure reaction all the time, nor should they do that. I can just point to Kid Icarus Uprising if you need an example of bad balance because such a thing is overemphasized despite attempts at thick variety.

Shield pressure can exist and SHOULD exist. But it has to be EARNED. Landing you easiest to land move is not EARNING pressure. A risky jump in that your opponent can react to 100% of the time and requires no advanced preparation, is an EARNED pressure situation. Getting a strong positional advantage due to a previous hit is EARNED advantage. Hitting your opponent because they didn't already begin their counter measure to this particular instance 45 frames ago is not EARNED at all.
Yep. Two words: armor busters. If a character like Ness needs a buff, it should be to moves like his Back and Down Airs, not to things like PSI Fire, Down Throw, or Forward Air.

People can spend the whole game watching for that one thing (by staying mobile and never being in range for a sh nair to land, or by including the first 30 frames of the counter measure into something they do the whole match) thus making it much riskier and harder to land, that doesn't mean its not still an issue. You can spend the whole game never being in range of IC's grab range and make them going for the grab risky, doesn't mean that IC's grab is a well designed mechanic.
Exactly. "That one thing" tends to be a problem by creating notions of overthinking. Link's arrows when you're Pac-Man....seriously, what gives them the right to 2HK the Hydrant with stupid high amounts of ease? It invites Pac-Man to be overly predictable just because Link's player wants to poop on the notion of center control and instead abuse degenerate gameplay. Nerf Link's arrows for that. I wouldn't even complain, I don't spam them when I play as Link.

Now I need to add that there are things the opponent has to constantly watch for that follow a character's flavor and would have to be intentional. It's not an excuse for those things to get out of hand about it. Refer to what I will add below the quote box for a design policy I have noticed. In the meantime, Link's arrows reliably 2HKing Pac's Hydrant means Link can just keep sniping it and continuously juggle Pac for low amounts of effort and definitely no regard to center control. It violates the notion that Link could need to be brave, wise, and crafty. And as to your own example, compare THAT to the ICs' grab. Yeah.

And you have to block correctly to beat attacks so high low mixups aren't unfair. Most of the time they have to be setup, very few people just get high low mixups for nothing (except marvel).
Ya know. The shield maneuver mechanic is underused in Smash 4, because it's risky for extremely conditional payoff. If it could be encouraged without crossing into beeswax, that'd be welcome.

Block is just much weaker in melee than it is in almost every fighter that I know of (But not as bad as Marvel). As a result attacking ALOT is heavily encouraged in Melee.
And thus the definition of center control got confused.

Now as to that game design policy I alluded to, some of you may have noticed this Extra Credits episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRBcjsOt0_g
Now add to it that I mentioned the idea that Link the smart armor would want to work with the 3 Triforce virtues, when throwing them out of balance is an open invitation to getting owned by somebody who isn't controlled by the Bombs, scared by the arrows, or outsmarted by the boomerang. Let's call this sort of idea Affinity Play, where the player's character has weaknesses allowing the opponent to do the same thing the player's character can do. Pac-Man is a perfect example: by his nature, he is an evasion character, but his melee is modest only able to keep predictable harassment at bay, and his general anti-armor has very notable issues so an opponent can take the center to effectiveness if he thinks he can play keepaway forever. Now his Hydrant is ranged anti-armor, which innately needs checking, but luckily the opponent can take ownership of it if Pac doesn't have a considerable space advantage. This turns the Hydrant into a sort of game where whoever gets the last hit on it wins. Now there's an interesting term: GAME. And oh hey, it reflects Pac-Man's already heartwarming personality which has him daydream of Blinky and Pinky in the Down Taunt.

Anybody who doesn't understand where I'm going with this, I'll provide another link involving the concept I'm trying to convey:
http://thegamedesignforum.com/features/RD_SMW_2.html

 

[Nobie]

I want to expand upon my previous post in this thread because I realized that, while what I was talking about was somewhat abstract, there was a concrete example in this very thread that has been the basis for much of the disagreement as to the value of advanced techniques in fighting games. Specifically, I'm talking about Rock Paper Scissors.

Both @ JediLink and @ Judo777 have been using RPS in their arguments, but doing so with very different opinions about RPS. To the former, Rock Paper Scissors is a game of zero depth, a pure guessing game that does not properly reward skill. However, to the latter RPS is in some sense the purest game of skill there is, because there are no tools or concrete things to rely on, only your ability to read your opponent and to commit to a decision. This, I think, is actually very important, because it basically means that the two of them (and the sides they represent) have been, in some ways, arguing past each other because they assumed certain fundamental stances that, when taken to the extreme, are inherently incompatible. If RPS is a skill-less guessing game, then you need mechanics to make up for that. If RPS is a pure game of reads, then mechanics get in the way.

What I think is also implied by this incompatibility, and where I think it becomes possible to see how the two sides are, in fact, not so divorced from one another, is a different perception of time. To put it differently, one turn of Rock Paper Scissors is more of a guessing game. With 100 turns of Rock Paper Scissors, the game changes. Now, you can try to condition your opponent. You can see what they tend to do in certain situations, or trying to pick up tells and patterns. Suddenly, with the gameplay mechanic of multiple turns, it becomes arguably a different game. This, I think, is where the association of fighting games with RPS comes from, that any given game will have multiple RPS scenarios and whoever wins more of them is generally the victor.

Another example of making rock paper scissors more of a "complete" game comes from a manga series called Kaiji. In its first story arc, the characters have to play a variation of RPS where each action is represented by a card, and you have finite amounts of each card. This introduces the skill of resource management into the equation, and depending on how you look at it, this is either building upon the solid foundation of Rock Paper Scissors or a way to get past its barren origins.

When I think about the two Smash games that are being talked about here, Melee is a game where winning the neutral rewards huge advantage, while Smash 4 emphasizes the neutral much more because more of the game takes place in neutral. In Melee, where gaining the advantage can often mean taking a stock, having the game potentially come down to just one or two balanced RPS situations (where one side does not have significantly more options than the other) per stock would mean that the game comes down to one or two "guesses." Here, Advanced Techniques, mechanical skill, etc., are what prevent Melee from being just a guessing game. Smash 4, on the other hand, does not reward the advantaged player so substantially, and thus there are more instances of balanced RPS situations in a given match, even though it's played with fewer stocks.

Of course, I want to emphasize that both games require reads, and both require mechanical skill. It's important that Captain Falcon is fairly popular in both games, and he is a character that thrives on hard reads. However, I think it's quite telling that the side in favor of how Melee implements its Advanced Techniques seem to almost consider "read" a dirty word, or at least something that should only be accessible once the players have mastered the mechanical side, while the side in favor of Smash 4's gameplay emphasizes it. This is why I used the bridge vs. wall metaphor in the previous post.

 

[Judo777]

No. That's all I have to say because I don't want to argue this anymore. Feel free to reread my previous posts where I explained all of this already.

Lol that's how i felt 2 posts ago, I have literally explained the same thing 3 times. I just then had to describe how the need to perform anything in advance is a read.

@ Nobie I think there are some general misconceptions about the value of RPS. RPS is not the MOST skilled game. There is certainly some skill to RPS (in reading you opponent) but it is certainly not the greatest test of skill. One important thing about RPS and why we like elements of fighting games having them is because RPS is a game that tests your ability to read your opponent. Which I believe any serious fighting game player would say, is something that fighting games SHOULD test. We want that to be a deciding factor in who wins. That is a huge part of basically every fighting game, if you can predict what your opponent is going to do, you can counter it and beat it.

That's why we hate over powered characters, they usually have abilities that there is no counter to. We know EXACTLY what they are going to do, and there is no counter. Which is ok in SOME situations (for instance if we already messed up badly, and we know they are going to grab the ledge and kill us, I may know 3 seconds in advance that they will do it, but I already messed up and am dead). But when we didn't make any mistakes, and the opponent does an option from neutral (akumas air fireball in super turbo) that has no counter and we KNEW he was going to do it, that's not a good test of skill (hence why Akuma is banned in super turbo).

And most importantly RPS is a PERFECTLY BALANCED game that tests your ability to read your opponent. No one choice has an advantage over the other 2. We like perfectly balanced tests of an important skill (reading your opponent) so RPS is a good element to have in a fighting game.

The downside to RPS is its very shallow. There is almost no depth to RPS. 3rd graders can understand the game completely. So what they try to do in fighting games, is build parts of the game around RPS and then add in other things to give it more depth. The game isn't RPS from the start, but there are things you can do to cause an RPS situation. And you get the advantage of choosing when you will play RPS, or maybe not at all. There are things you can do to play RPS but make is so your opponent can't pick rock (think of a Snake dthrow tech chase, where a mine is covering your roll away option). But situations like that are strong and often have to be earned (snake had to plant that mine in advance). Also you have the option sometimes of avoiding rps situations at a cost, maybe that's not your strength but you are better at the opponent in the other aspects of the game (spacing or MU knowledge). A great example is (and there was one opponent that I did this to) I played a Snake player that would **** me at dthrow tech chases (he would read my rolls like 3 or 4 times in a row, his natural RPS pattern or method of thinking just beat mine), so i would in situations where I was going to be grabbed to do a riskier option that would give him and uair instead of a grab because I did not want to play RPS with him.

So RPS is something you definitely want elements of in any fighting game. And in smash the most basic one, as I have stated is block, attack, grab. Because that is the RPS at neutral (therefore because nothing has been earned yet, it should be pretty balanced).

 

[Nobie]

Lol that's how i felt 2 posts ago, I have literally explained the same thing 3 times. I just then had to describe how the need to perform anything in advance is a read.

@ Nobie I think there are some general misconceptions about the value of RPS. RPS is not the MOST skilled game. There is certainly some skill to RPS (in reading you opponent) but it is certainly not the greatest test of skill. One important thing about RPS and why we like elements of fighting games having them is because RPS is a game that tests your ability to read your opponent. Which I believe any serious fighting game player would say, is something that fighting games SHOULD test. We want that to be a deciding factor in who wins. That is a huge part of basically every fighting game, if you can predict what your opponent is going to do, you can counter it and beat it.

That's why we hate over powered characters, they usually have abilities that there is no counter to. We know EXACTLY what they are going to do, and there is no counter. Which is ok in SOME situations (for instance if we already messed up badly, and we know they are going to grab the ledge and kill us, I may know 3 seconds in advance that they will do it, but I already messed up and am dead). But when we didn't make any mistakes, and the opponent does an option from neutral (akumas air fireball in super turbo) that has no counter and we KNEW he was going to do it, that's not a good test of skill (hence why Akuma is banned in super turbo).

And most importantly RPS is a PERFECTLY BALANCED game that tests your ability to read your opponent. No one choice has an advantage over the other 2. We like perfectly balanced tests of an important skill (reading your opponent) so RPS is a good element to have in a fighting game.

The downside to RPS is its very shallow. There is almost no depth to RPS. 3rd graders can understand the game completely. So what they try to do in fighting games, is build parts of the game around RPS and then add in other things to give it more depth. The game isn't RPS from the start, but there are things you can do to cause an RPS situation. And you get the advantage of choosing when you will play RPS, or maybe not at all. There are things you can do to play RPS but make is so your opponent can't pick rock (think of a Snake dthrow tech chase, where a mine is covering your roll away option). But situations like that are strong and often have to be earned (snake had to plant that mine in advance). Also you have the option sometimes of avoiding rps situations at a cost, maybe that's not your strength but you are better at the opponent in the other aspects of the game (spacing or MU knowledge). A great example is (and there was one opponent that I did this to) I played a Snake player that would **** me at dthrow tech chases (he would read my rolls like 3 or 4 times in a row, his natural RPS pattern or method of thinking just beat mine), so i would in situations where I was going to be grabbed to do a riskier option that would give him and uair instead of a grab because I did not want to play RPS with him.

So RPS is something you definitely want elements of in any fighting game. And in smash the most basic one, as I have stated is block, attack, grab. Because that is the RPS at neutral (therefore because nothing has been earned yet, it should be pretty balanced).

I should clarify that when I say the "purest" game of skill, I don't mean that it is the "best" test of skill, but rather that it comes down to emphasizing a particular fundamental, that it, in effect, strips away all excess to be a game of all reads.

 

[Master Knight DH]

Since we're on the subject of RPS, I want to provide my 2 cents.

RPS is welcome because it punishes people who spam the same thing over and over again. So let's provide the usual triangles:
*Offense > Control > Defense > Offense
-Offense beats Control by using burst punishment
-Control beats Defense by ensuring hit/evade advantage
-Defense beats Offense by walling
*Cover > Focus > Flanking > Cover
-Cover beats Focus by walling
-Focus beats Flanking (or Space Control) by using burst punishment
-Flanking beats Cover by ignoring defenses
*Attack > Grab > Block > Attack
-Attack and Block speak for themselves. Grab can be called Control because it ignores defenses but has low reach in general
*Armor > Speed > Anti-Armor > Armor
-Armor prevents damage by Speed
-Speed outmaneuvers Anti-Armor
-Anti-Armor damages Armor
-Note that Speed can be replaced by Accuracy, and Anti-Armor by Evasion which gets caught by Accuracy but outmaneuvers Armor. The Armor > Accuracy > Evasion > Armor triangle is something that should be left to player mentality and in fact balanced on paper in favor of Armor.

Noticed what I said in that last one? Namely, each choice in an RPS system should have different momentum and payoff values. I'm sure you can guess who beat me to the punch in saying that much, but this doesn't change the point's validity. It also needs structure to make sure strategic factor is working out. For any designers reading, I would recommend with the Armor > Accuracy > Evasion > Armor triangle that Armor get the best momentum values and the most safety when hard-countered at the cost of lowest payoff, and Accuracy get the best payoff values at the cost of weakest safety when hard-countered. Evasion, while requiring more skill than Armor, tends to make things just as degenerate if not checked properly as well. Accuracy being risk-reward with reliable armor but paying off on win would make Evasion still useful but now risk-reward as well and want to bother with methodical gameplay. Then with Evasion still useful, Armor would need to work with leveled play--of course, an ever constant threat of bullrushes from the high momentum and safety would all but ensure the game being fast paced as both sides will want to keep attacking into each other.

Armor > Speed > Anti-Armor > Armor is a different story. Armor should still have the same stuff as in the other RPS, but Anti-Armor should have the highest payoff and moderate-on-paper safety when hard-countered. This ensures that people will actually consider throwing about skill and affinity to handle the Anti-Armor option, rather than just outmaneuver everything.

Yeah, this whole thing got complicated, but you see that a developer can and indeed should add structure and depth to an RPS basis. I don't doubt if others can provide other, perhaps cleaner examples compared to the ones I gave out.

 

[HeavyMetalSonic]

Some people believe if they get a technique that is super hard to pull off/land, that they MUST be good at the game. That simply isn't the case.

There's so many things that make up a good player. One player might know all the frame data and information in the game for every character, but the other might be the biggest headf**k you've ever come across and can bait out certain attacks which might not be the best option at the time with ease, and punish it. Who wins? Who knows. There are multiple options in every situation. A classic example of this is M2K. He spent literally thousands of hours testing EVERYTHING. He slaughtered everyone... But then he had a few bad games where his opponent got into his head and he just fell flat on his ass. He has his good games because he is a good player, he knows his s**t and can adapt a little bit better and isn't so "pen and paper" now; but then he has his bad games when he gets stuck in a rut because his opponent runs rings around him, or the crowd is against him and it gets to him.

It's one thing knowing everything about the game, how one character might counter another, but it's another to be able to have the reflexes and general skill to perform. You need a little bit of everything to do well, knowing all the advanced techniques in the book isn't the only thing you need, as impressive as it may be to press a sequence of buttons with frame perfect precision. If you can't put it into practice effectively, it's not going to get you far.

 

[luigijerk]

Even though I laugh at how dumb and impractical half the ATs people get excited about are, there is a good reason people talk about them so much on here. You don't need much help from a forum to master the simple ins and outs of a character. All you need is practice and reps for that. ATs, however, you probably will never discover without the aid of the forums. It's simply a more unknown topic, hence more discussion.

 

[Blobface]

Advanced Tech's do add more options for a character and consequently more strategy, but my gripe has always been with the "advanced" part. It all comes down to control. The goal of controls in any video game is to be a simple and straightforward as possible without giving up the integrity of how the game feels to play. The controls should be easy to use, but you should never feel like you're just watching what's going on on-screen and pressing a button every once-and-awhile.

Take peach's float for example. It's not easy to do and it has to be learned, but it's not really an execution barrier. If you could float near the ground by tapping some extra button duct-taped to the controller, you'd no longer really feel like you were floating. If floating required you to do a full circle with your analog stick then press shield, attack, and special at the same time, that would be an execution barrier.

This is a problem I think a lot of fighting games suffer from nowadays, and is one of the reasons I've always preferred the Smash series. Bounce Cancels in Injustice could be as simple as holding down and pressing a button, but instead, we get X,X, Forward Forward, RT. The primary challenge of any video game should be to use the tools you have in unique and strategic ways, not learning how to use the tools.