Gaming Super Smash Bros. Brawl

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial][CENTER][IMG]http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/various/images/various11/various11_071030c.jpg[/IMG][/CENTER]

Meta Knight's a Big ole' boy!!

I like the (heretofore) shown layout of the new Classic mode.



[B]Edit:[/B] They have revealed Ike's final smash. I am happy.[/FONT]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]A level editor? How did I miss that?

Geeze. This game is shaping up to be bigger than religion.[/font]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

[quote name='James'][FONT=franklin gothic medium]Geeze. This game is shaping up to be bigger than religion.[/FONT][/quote]

Take a look at Smashboards.com. The series is like The Beatles. It's already bigger than Jesus.

[The Spectacular Professor]

Well, Jihad, looks like there's no worries about the taunting of others. Sure, it's all in writing, but I plan to harass my friends to no end. (Know what would be sweet? if you designate a comeback phrase to a taunt. Something like "...in bed!" Immature, but funny.)

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Woot! Judging from Snake's taunt in that screen shot on Smash Bros. Dojo, there's just enough space for, "Fatty beat you down!" Also, I have to note that, "That's what she said," will also fit. :toothy:

Also, I am so glad they changed the way [url=http://www.smashbros.com/en_us/gamemode/various/various12.html][u]handicaps[/u][/url] work. They pissed me off to no end in SSB and SSBM because they basically made it impossible for me to win in free-for-all matches while fighting lesser skilled players. I could hit with plenty of good combos but since my attacks were all so weak it was impossible to actually KO anyone before another person came along and took the point with their stronger hits. And using the auto mode would just make my handicap level go up to where I couldn't win, then down to where I'd wipe the floor with everyone, then back up, without actually settling. I got to the point where I wouldn't even bother playing with handicaps on because it just wasn't any fun that way.[/color]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

We have zero new information about the taunts, Ace. No surprises here. Being able to pre-type almost an entire sentence changes nothing. The taunt system is still substandard...and it was substandard for far, far more than just message length.

Regarding this handicap nonsense, I'm genuinely pissed they're changing the handicap feature. Melee's handicap was fantastic provided you didn't use auto handicap, which I agree went much too quickly across that scale. Starting at the default, winning twice was already dropping you down to dangerous handicaps very suddenly.

But the manual handicap? ****ing incredible. You could tweak it so you'd have a perfectly balanced match (at least, balanced relative to the players). Just last year I introduced a friend to Smash Bros Melee. Until that point, she'd never even really heard about Smash Bros, let alone played it. So after a few regular matches of decimation, we decided to fiddle with the handicaps. The result was some of the best Melee fights I've ever had.

Never ever expected to enjoy it, but Bowser (Angie) versus Young Link (me) on Final Destination...joygasm. Sure, it took some work for me to take each stock, Bowser barely moved until the 40s, I was zooming across at 60, and Angie could pretty much just keep walking through my boomerangs and arrows. But goddamnit, it was so balanced.

See, Melee's handicap system wasn't broken or anything and it sure as hell didn't need to be replaced with this crap. If you were subtle in using the manual handicap in Melee, it was one of the most amazing tools in the game.

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Melee's handicap system worked great for 1v1 matches, sure. But like I said, it's crap for 4-player free-for-alls. The handicaps weaken you so that people will pretty much always get KOed by the less handicapped people long before you can get anyone to high enough percent for you to be able to KO them. No KOs means no points and no points means it's impossible to win a timed match.

Maybe it's better for free-for-all stock matches, but I imagine that would turn into a game of hit and run tactics since all you can do is damage people and then wait for others to KO them until it's only you and one other player left. And that gets old fast.

Besides, if you really want to set up a handicap similar to Melee's, just put the damage ratio on .5 and jack up the handicapped player's starting damage to produce the same effect.[/color]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

...why the **** are you playing timed matches?

...and why the **** would you not go for the KO yourself, even with a handicap?

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Because timed matches work better for four player free-for-all when you've got people of varying skill levels. Otherwise the lesser skilled players just get eliminated right away, which is no fun for them. Normally that would be solved by using handicaps but, again, that gets frustrating for the skilled players because they can never get KOs.

And in a stock match it would make sense for the skilled players to do hit and run. Since their attacks are weakened, to KO someone they'd have to get them to significantly higher percent than someone without such a crippling handicap. So it would be safer to do damage, then let others finish the person off rather than keep attacking and risk getting KOed themself.[/color]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

**** timed matches, dude. It's better for when you have varying skill levels? You play timed matches to give the less-skilled player a better chance? **** no. If anything, timed is even worse for the less-skilled player, because it in fact gives them [I]less[/I] of a chance to do well, even in FFA. Why?

Say within 5 minutes of a 10-minute match, the score is 3-2-1-1, which is a very reasonable spread, skill levels considered. The best player has made 3 kills in 5 minutes, while the worst player has only grabbed one, which, again, in our years playing Melee, has happened [I]quite[/I] a bit, haha.

With 5 minutes remaining in the match, that worst player not only needs to overcome the initial deficit of 3 stock, but also stay ahead of all three players, which means getting just enough kills to maintain the lead in a match where they've been utterly raped in the first half. That's not a chance at all.

The moment when that player is trailing by almost a kill-per-minute, they're eliminated, outright.

Even if they were to target the two middle players, they're still going to have that top player coming down on everyone.

I've played plenty of timed matches after one or two friends (3rd and 4th placers, incidentally) bitched about stock, and I tell ya...it was way worse for them, because my lead and their last-places were just that much more obscene.

Make no mistake. In timed matches, the crap player has no chance to do remotely well. They're playing against the top player, against the middle players, against the score, and against the clock in a gametype where aggressive play is all that matters, and where playing conservatively is irrelevant.

Sure, in timed they don't get literally knocked out of the game. But that's a technicality, because in the course of that timed match, they're going to get obliterated way, way worse than they ever would in a match where they got outright 5-stocked.

At least in stock matches you're playing against the other players and the stock, which means you can play defensively, try to whittle down (whittle up?) your opponents, and most importantly, stay safe.

Stock is so much more fair to varying skill levels.

As for handicaps in stock FFA...

One, drastically altering the handicap will just **** you up. Putting the handicap to where you can't even kill is asinine and foolish. Subtle tweaking is where it's at, [I]especially[/I] for FFA. From what you're describing it sounds like handicapping went overboard, so it's no wonder you were hating those matches.

Two, if you're damaging a target, you finish that target off, unless the situation is absolutely unfriendly to grabbing the KO.

A few years ago, I came across an interesting little philosophy regarding RPGs: "Finish it! An injured enemy will do the same damage as a healthy one." Unless you're playing Advance Wars, where the unit strength is directly dependent on its health, "Finish It" is a very smart idea.

Even with a handicap (the non-retarded, non-drastic kind), you should still always go for the kill if you're at all able to, because even with your target at 80 or 90%, they're still hitting you just as hard as they could at 10%.

And three, the only reason you're using a handicap in stock FFA is if you're playing against lousy players, which means getting a KO should never be a problem, even with a handicap. You might have to work for it a bit more, and use more than brute force (like using aerial spikes, the environment, juggles, anticipating techs, etc), but getting a KO against a crap player should never be a problem.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Dude. You spend [I]way[/I] too much time thinking about this.

:animesmil[/FONT]

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Dude. You spend [I]way[/I] too much time thinking about this.

:animesmil[/FONT][/QUOTE]

Agreed. My line of thought goes something like "Game fun. I wanna play."

And yes, the taunt system is substandard, but I am a big fan of "Whose Line is it Anyway." Three-word vocabulary Brawl matches are a tempting prospect.

[PWNED]

Bloody hell, I now officially wish that I'd gotten a Wii for my birthday instead of my 360. A level editor is officially what will push this game over the edge into sheer bliss.

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]I never said timed matches give lesser skilled players a better chance at winning. I said it's more fun for them. Since, you know, they actually get to play for a solid five minutes instead of getting eliminated in two and then having to sit and wait out the rest of the match.

A lot of the time, yes, the handicaps do go overboard when I'm playing with beginners. They either handicap me so much that I can't get any KOs and just have to run my *** away for most of the match so I won't die in two hits, or else I wipe the floor with them. We've yet to find a middle ground, even adjusting the handicaps manually; I go straight from first place to fourth. Which is actually kind of funny when auto handicaps are used, since it usually results in me winning and losing every other match, but it's still frustrating for either me or them each time.

And I also made the same observation back when I first started playing RPGs. But the thing is, it's not that I don't try to finish people off, it's that I literally can't without them being at 200% or more, due to the handicaps. Before I can get anyone that high, someone else will have jumped in and stolen the kill since their attacks aren't weakened as much.

I'm happy about the new system since that way, even if I die fast from starting with 100%, I'll at least be able get in good combos and actually have them be able to KO people. Instead of hitting someone with a side smash from the edge of the stage at 150% and having them barely clear the camera range.[/color]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

[quote name='Desbreko'][COLOR=#4b0082]I never said timed matches give lesser skilled players a better chance at winning. I said it's more fun for them. Since, you know, they actually get to play for a solid five minutes instead of getting eliminated in two and then having to sit and wait out the rest of the match.[/COLOR][/quote]

...

......

DUDE...are you kidding me? You've [I]got[/I] to be kidding. They're [I]that bad[/I]?

No, I absolutely refuse to believe that any player can get stocked-out in two minutes. In the six years I've been playing Melee, in the fiercest, most chaotic stock FFAs with my high school buddies...[I]never[/I] did anyone [I]ever[/I] get eliminated in two minutes, even if we were playing 3-stock. I mean, [I]Christ, dude[/I]. Either you're playing with people fresh out of a lobotomy or you're playing with, like, 2-stock. Bump that **** up to 5 or 10 and nobody will be complaining.

And speaking of people bitching. How are timed matches more fun for your lousy playmates? What, only because they're then able to play an entire match? What a load of horse ****. lol.

If timed matches are fun for your friends or whatever, you're obviously not raping them hard enough. And that's the truth. Once they finally experience how painful timed matches can be as they suffer through 5 minutes of sheer agony at the hands of someone who has no problem at all being far more brutal than anyone they know...they'll gladly go back to stock matches and appreciate getting eliminated. I know I'd mercilessly stomp those ****ers into the ground life after life after life.

I really can't see how timed matches are [I]more[/I] fun for crap players, because instead of a 5-stock devastation, they're getting stomped repeatedly over 5 minutes. Which is the bigger morale-killer? In gaming, a swift death is always preferred over a long, grinding one.

Timed is more fun for lousy players? [B]No[/B]. If anything, it just [I]prolongs[/I] their agony...and not to mention forces them to play in a style they're 95% not ready for anyway if they suck badly enough to necessitate adding handicaps, changing gametypes, etc etc. If you want lousy players to have fun, have them play stock, because they have much better chances of doing well there, unless they're just utterly terrible. Which in that case, take them out to pasture and put them out of their misery.

[quote][COLOR=#4b0082]We've yet to find a middle ground, even adjusting the handicaps manually[/COLOR][/quote]

What handicap levels are you--rather, [I]were[/I] you using?

[quote][COLOR=#4b0082]And I also made the same observation back when I first started playing RPGs. But the thing is, it's not that I don't try to finish people off, it's that I literally can't without them being at 200% or more, due to the handicaps.[/COLOR][/quote]

If that 200% is accurate, then I'll tell you right now you and your friends have no idea how to actually tweak the handicap. For stock FFA, you should be adjusting your handicap one or two ticks. A handicap of 3 or 4 is optimal, and your opponents should be looking at default at 5, possibly 6, [I]maybe[/I] 7, but 7 is pushing it. If you're actually needing them at 200% for a KO, their handicap has got to be in the 8s, which is horrid. And if they're whining that they need anything above 6 or 7...you need to find new playmates.

[quote][COLOR=#4b0082]I'm happy about the new system since that way, even if I die fast from starting with 100%, I'll at least be able get in good combos and actually have them be able to KO people. Instead of hitting someone with a side smash from the edge of the stage at 150% and having them barely clear the camera range.[/COLOR][/quote]

Man, if you started at 100% around me, you'd be out of the arena before you could do anything significant. And again, if that 150% is accurate, you and your friends are not using the handicap correctly.

Finally...your mates just suck. Find new friends.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Dude, what part of "lesser skilled players" did you not understand?

With weaker people you don't go bloody full-out. If all you do is rape them, they [I]will not[/I] get better. They won't have the time. The point of playing more laid-back is to let them get better, so you can play harder, so they can get better, so you can play harder, etc., etc.

It's not all about showing the tiny people how much they suck. That's not fun at all.[/FONT]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Dude, what part of "lesser skilled players" did you not understand?

With weaker people you don't go bloody full-out. If all you do is rape them, they [I]will not[/I] get better. They won't have the time. The point of playing more laid-back is to let them get better, so you can play harder, so they can get better, so you can play harder, etc., etc.

It's not all about showing the tiny people how much they suck. That's not fun at all.[/FONT][/quote]

Dude, I understand it damn well, but despite what you may want to believe, going easy on someone in any game does not help them improve. Despite Des and I disagreeing on timed matches here, even he'll agree that going "laid-back" on someone is never going to help them. In fact, all it does it condition them to be no better than the bare minimum needed to keep up with your "laid-back" performance.

If someone is [I]brand-new[/I] at Melee, then yes, you don't go all out until they've got their bearings.

But here we're not talking about someone who's never played Melee before. Here, the "lesser-skilled players" have already logged quite a bit of time in the game. They still suck, right? That's because they're not improving. Why? Because they aren't being challenged. Why? Because from what I can tell, timed matches is all that's being played.

And after you stomp someone into the ground, if they do want to improve, they will.

Take issue with the new player's reaction to the training philosophy. [I]Don't[/I] take issue with the training philosophy itself.

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]As it happens, when I'm forced into handicapped matches it usually is with people who have little to no experience with the game. So the levels do end up at 3 for me, 7 for them. If I get any say I at least put theirs down to 6 since a difference of more than three becomes no fun. If it's on auto I usually fluctuate between 3 and 2, sometimes up to 4, though I've never been able to push it all the way down to 1.

Another reason we play timed matches is that in those settings, there's usually a rather large group of people wanting to play and they care more about actually getting to play than winning or losing. So timed matches work well for rotating people out at regular intervals. If it's just me and a few friends, I definitely prefer stock.

Against people who actually have experience with the game but still aren't at my skill level, I just play on my lesser used characters most of the time and only pull out Marth and Link occasionally. That usually evens things out well enough.

And yes, you don't go easy on people who actually know what they're doing. If you don't go full strength against them they won't learn as quickly because they won't see what's possible and how to do advanced techniques. There's a reason it took me years to learn crap like wavedashing and SHFFLing and it's because I had to learn it entirely on my own (no one I know can do them, at least to my knowledge) with YouTube videos being my only example.[/color]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

[quote name='Desbreko'][COLOR=#4b0082]If I get any say[/COLOR][/quote]

"If you get any say"...why do you play with these people, again? They sound like a bunch of pussies.

[quote][COLOR=#4b0082]Another reason we play timed matches is that in those settings, there's usually a rather large group of people wanting to play and they care more about actually getting to play than winning or losing.[/COLOR][/quote]

Solution: 3-stock FFA. Or 4-stock Teams.

[quote][COLOR=#4b0082]Against people who actually have experience with the game but still aren't at my skill level, I just play on my lesser used characters most of the time and only pull out Marth and Link occasionally. That usually evens things out well enough.[/COLOR][/quote]

Average knowledge and experience with the game, so you select secondary characters. That's not going easy on them, of course. You aren't being "laid-back" in those matches. You're just using a non-main. I hope you still have the common decency to steam-roll with your non-mains.

[quote][COLOR=#4b0082]And yes, you don't go easy on people who actually know what they're doing. If you don't go full strength against them they won't learn as quickly because they won't see what's possible and how to do advanced techniques. There's a reason it took me years to learn crap like wavedashing and SHFFLing and it's because I had to learn it entirely on my own (no one I know can do them, at least to my knowledge) with YouTube videos being my only example.[/COLOR][/quote]

Now, of course, advanced techniques mean nothing if your mind-games aren't up to snuff.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]I never said you go easy. I said you don't go all out. I understand perfectly that if you just half-*** a match they won't learn jack; but by the same token, if they don't have time to learn jack in the first place, what good does that do?

Give 'em an inch, take back a foot, and make 'em work to even it up.[/FONT]

[Desbreko]

[color=#4B0082]Well, you know, mob rule isn't pretty. When it's me against a dozen other people who want handicaps it's hard to win unless we happen to be playing my copy of the game.

Yeah, of course I fight full strength on both my mains and my little used characters. On some I characters I kind of have to since I can actually end up being at a disadvantage that way.

And the thing is, people still learn even when you completely thrash them. They see every move you do and, if they're smart, they'll start trying out the things they see. And going full strength against them will teach them to do things [i]well[/i] because that's how they'll see them being done and that's all that will work against a skilled player. Otherwise they pick up sloppy habits—believe me, I know, since after playing mainly against the horribly predictable CPU players for years I've picked some horribly predictable habits myself.

Of course, like Alex said, you don't fight full strength against beginners since they're still learning the game's basic moves. But once they're comfortable with all their character's moves and how to shield and dodge, they're fair game.[/color]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

Like Des just said, once your opponent has got the basic moves down...you tear into them like a ****ing wolverine. Anything less does you, them, and the game a disservice.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Arial]Aye. On that we agree. However, from the tone of Des's posts, it seems like his opponents aren't exactly trying to learn...at least, not to the same level. I'm sure you know of players like that, who just don't care about mastering their characters, who just wanna have a silly free-for-all at a weekend party.

If they're actually trying to get good, then sure, by all means trash 'em. If they just wanna play, though, that's a different story. Personally, I get tired of winning all the time in those types of situation, so I let myself slack off, or I drop out for a half-hour.

I will agree on the stock match bit. Timed just doesn't make you try as hard, and takes strategy completely out.[/FONT]

[Guest The Blue Jihad]

If they're looking to have a silly FFA, all the more reason to decimate them. Murder them silly. Always play to win. The only times when you toy with your opponents is when they're trash-talking. Because that's when you crank out mind-games. Case in point:

While back, my buds and I were sitting down to play Melee. I picked Zelda. Nick immediately told me that if I didn't switch over to Sheik at the start of the match, I was a ****ing moron. I blew him a kiss. Put fear into him right there.

We were playing for fun (i.e., casual), but after that match, Nick had a stupefied look on his face. "I...I just...got raped by ZELDA?!"

You play to win no matter who the crowd is.

And it's not that timed doesn't require strategy. It's just that it's a terrible gametype for inexperienced players, because of how aggressive you need to be, and you'll be hard-pressed to find green players who can keep up. Stock is all-around the better match type, but timed is for experienced players only who know the game, and who can move, act, react, attack, and improvise as quickly as timed matches require.

...and why the **** am I always replying within 10 minutes of a post? I have no reply notification options enabled. I'm rarely at my computer most nights these days. When I am near my PC, I'm watching TV. What the ****.

[Shinmaru]

I think you have intense debate-sensing powers. Whenever someone argues against something you posted (or makes a counterargument to your counterargument), you feel it deep inside and immediately launch into Refute Mode.