On January 20 2015 05:37 alukarD wrote: And Melee was designed for a Mario Party game type.
No. It was designed to be an accessible fighting game.
On January 20 2015 12:02 [SXG]Phantom wrote: 5/5 pretty cool, i really like that melee players like smash that much, but honestly, in my opinion, they should switch to smash 4 already. I mean its not even a question of which one is ebtter, both are really close and simmilar, even if you think melee is better, but simply because smash 4 is newer it could gather even more attention, its strictly buissness
Yes, people are gonna stop playing the game that they love because of business.
That's pretty much exactly what happened with Brood War, at least for those players who want to make a living playing video games.
the "esports" situations of brood war and fighting games are years, countries, and cultures apart. you cant compare them at all.
the people who think that people should just switch to smash 4 are clueless about the history of the smash community. they already went through this bullshit with MLG and they certainly dont need it again.
On January 20 2015 18:34 RaGe wrote: And in the end, the Melee community seems to be profiting way more from Smash4's success than they're losing to it.
Can't say that right now, we have to wait. Melee's numbers improved a lot even before Smash 4. It profited late from Brawl when people finally got fed up with it and switched to Melee even though Brawl introduced them to Smash. (Too bad we never really got that with BW/SC2. I guess it's easier on consoles.)
On January 20 2015 18:34 RaGe wrote:It's fun to see the influx of SC players in to the Melee community. I don't know if it's because of TL's Smash team, but I'm pretty sure a lot of the old BW fans will stick around since the game in its entirety resembles Brood War a lot, albeit in a totally different genre/gameflow.
Yeah, I noticed that before as well. But it's sad that there isn't much going on in the Melee section.
And what needs to be mentioned: The documentary brought a lot of people into the scene which was nice.
Of course, there are lots of growing pains with the new documentary generation, especially among those who saw the documentary and think they know everything... but we don't have any of those people on TL, do we? ^_^
On January 24 2015 04:35 ]343[ wrote: Of course, there are lots of growing pains with the new documentary generation, especially among those who saw the documentary and think they know everything... but we don't have any of those people on TL, do we? ^_^
On January 24 2015 04:35 ]343[ wrote: Of course, there are lots of growing pains with the new documentary generation, especially among those who saw the documentary and think they know everything... but we don't have any of those people on TL, do we? ^_^
I at least know you aren't one since you regularly posted in the Melee thread as well, before the documentary even existed
Also, it's a shame that that other guy isn't posting in the Smash section. Currently forgot his name but he is part of the Twitch staff these days and promoted Melee there.
On January 24 2015 04:35 ]343[ wrote: Of course, there are lots of growing pains with the new documentary generation, especially among those who saw the documentary and think they know everything... but we don't have any of those people on TL, do we? ^_^
I at least know you aren't one since you regularly posted in the Melee thread as well, before the documentary even existed
Also, it's a shame that that other guy isn't posting in the Smash section. Currently forgot his name but he is part of the Twitch staff these days and promoted Melee there.
That's Atrioc, I think.
@OP: I started 10 months ago. The start was brutal, when even wavedashing or L-cancelling wasn't second nature and perplexing. However, by learning from people better than I am and going to locals occasionally, it's definitely leveled up my game. Not amazing or even decent by any means, but I am loving the progression that I am seeing. Seeing people do movement options and tech skill that seemed godly at the time now seems standard for me. The game is a lot more fun to play now as well!
Yeah, Atrioc doesn't post on TL much anymore He was the MSL writing team lead immediately before I started covering MSL! I met him at some Norcal tourneys but didn't get to talk to him much
On January 24 2015 04:35 ]343[ wrote: Of course, there are lots of growing pains with the new documentary generation, especially among those who saw the documentary and think they know everything... but we don't have any of those people on TL, do we? ^_^
I at least know you aren't one since you regularly posted in the Melee thread as well, before the documentary even existed
Also, it's a shame that that other guy isn't posting in the Smash section. Currently forgot his name but he is part of the Twitch staff these days and promoted Melee there.
That's Atrioc, I think.
@OP: I started 10 months ago. The start was brutal, when even wavedashing or L-cancelling wasn't second nature and perplexing. However, by learning from people better than I am and going to locals occasionally, it's definitely leveled up my game. Not amazing or even decent by any means, but I am loving the progression that I am seeing. Seeing people do movement options and tech skill that seemed godly at the time now seems standard for me. The game is a lot more fun to play now as well!
Yep, exactly, thanks. I knew the name started with an "A". I already reprimanded him but it didn't compel him to post more
You know a game has done it right when you have fun losing which leads to improving, eventually.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
Gonna have to step in and defend smash 4 here. Melee is a good game and is huge (and I would agree that it's a better spectator game due to its style), but Smash 4 is showing a lot of promise as well. There are 1024 apex entrants for melee, but also over 800 for smash 4. If you were to not count melee's entrants this year at apex, smash 4 this year would be the biggest smash tournament ever. Since this is the first smash 4 tournament, it could either decrease or increase next year -- we can't count it out. Also notable to say is that although the smash community is very passionate, the average smasher is not very knowledgable about the various games (which is understandable -- not many people know about both BW and SC2). This means that a lot of melee players haven't even tried or considered playing Smash 4 (I know a lot of people in person who are like this -- I would also add that there seems to be a strong effect of nostalgia or novelty in playing a game that's so figured out and so old, similar to the appeal of BW to young gamers in Korea), or are not playing Smash 4 due to a lot of misconceptions and misinformation, or are simply waiting to see how it fares before thinking of trying it out.
Arguable. Not all competitive games have to be faster.
Deeper... very very arguable. There's a lot less options in melee than in smash 4 to consider when trying to outplay your opponent. It's true in melee there's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish, but there's also a lot of parts that are shallower or where the difference between lower level and higher level just isn't that big (edgeguarding for example is often very easy and simple in melee -- it's often a guaranteed kill as long as you know how to position and react, where as in Smash 4 there is a lot more to consider such as whether to stay on the stage and keep the small positional advantage of stage control or to try the riskier-but-higher-reward act of pursuing your opponent off stage which will allow only players with truly superior decision making to profit and grab a quick kill). In any case, there's a lot of room for argument and neither game clearly has more depth (especially since it depends what kind of depth you want).
More skill based? If you mean technical skill, sure.
Better balanced? Ok this one is 100% not true. The balance in melee (and brawl) is bad. Smash 4 blows it out of the water. The balance is so bad that many would agree with certain characters being objectively better than others because weak characters have absolutely *no* strengths. For example, Kirby, Pichu, Ness, and Bowser are so terrible that in the SBR's tier list they are in the "Unplayable Tier", and another fourth of the cast is in "very situational tier".
In Smash 4, everyone has both interesting strengths and weaknesses since they paid more attention on design and balance, except for a few exceptions where someone is a solid all around character or slightly lacking in either strengths or weaknesses (diddy, shiek, pikachu, but future patches or metagame development are still possible). In Smash 4, literally every character is seeing competitive play, even if rare. Every character has been seeing high placements in tournaments of the regional level or higher. There's no indication that Smash 4's balance will become anywhere as bad as melee. Smash 4's balance is amazing so far, and the character design is very well thought out and each character is more true to his/her games.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
I was just trying to say how easy edgeguarding in melee is (I've played melee for a long time on the actual console) even on suboptimal controls, so I don't find it interesting enough (impressive enough) when I watch pros edgeguard. Even easier with a GC controller + CRT.
Right, thing is I don't mind that, because if someone decides to go deep (and risk losing stage control) it's more exciting because it's rarer/risky, and only occasionally/rarely will they grab a kill. I prefer that over melee where quick or easy kills are very frequent and you are dead more than not if launched far off stage, it's just more varied and I prefer that "pyramid" structure over "inverse pyramid" (pyramid = uncommon edgeguard kills, commonly successfully regaining stage control but not without taking lots of damage)
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
I was just trying to say how easy edgeguarding in melee is (I've played melee for a long time on the actual console) even on suboptimal controls, so I don't find it interesting enough (impressive enough) when I watch pros edgeguard. Even easier with a GC controller + CRT.
Right, thing is I don't mind that, because if someone decides to go deep (and risk losing stage control) it's more exciting because it's rarer/risky, and only occasionally/rarely will they grab a kill. I prefer that over melee where quick or easy kills are very frequent and you are dead more than not if launched far off stage, it's just more varied and I prefer that "pyramid" structure over "inverse pyramid" (pyramid = uncommon edgeguard kills, commonly successfully regaining stage control but not without taking lots of damage)
You underestimate how hard it is to edgeguard good players who recover well. The differences in the offstage game in melee are subtle angle/positioning/timing things which make a huge difference but are hard to identify when you're watching the edgeguarder respond perfectly. All you see is "got edgeguarded". You don't see the 90 other players in the top 100 who would have chosen an inferior flowchart.
The result of an edgeguard/recovery attempt is always going to be 1 or 0, but there are a million degrees of room for improvement on either side of it, despite how deceptively simple it looks.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
I was just trying to say how easy edgeguarding in melee is (I've played melee for a long time on the actual console) even on suboptimal controls, so I don't find it interesting enough (impressive enough) when I watch pros edgeguard. Even easier with a GC controller + CRT.
Right, thing is I don't mind that, because if someone decides to go deep (and risk losing stage control) it's more exciting because it's rarer/risky, and only occasionally/rarely will they grab a kill. I prefer that over melee where quick or easy kills are very frequent and you are dead more than not if launched far off stage, it's just more varied and I prefer that "pyramid" structure over "inverse pyramid" (pyramid = uncommon edgeguard kills, commonly successfully regaining stage control but not without taking lots of damage)
You underestimate how hard it is to edgeguard good players who recover well. The differences in the offstage game in melee are subtle angle/positioning/timing things which make a huge difference but are hard to identify when you're watching the edgeguarder respond perfectly. All you see is "got edgeguarded". You don't see the 90 other players in the top 100 who would have chosen an inferior flowchart.
The result of an edgeguard/recovery attempt is always going to be 1 or 0, but there are a million degrees of room for improvement on either side of it, despite how deceptively simple it looks.
You can say that even more so with Smash 4 then since it's even harder to get a kill no? As both a spectator and a player, I would have to disagree and say it's not as deep as you're saying it is. Hard maybe, but not deep. It's more about positioning, timing, reaction, and execution than it is reading or responding to multiple actions on the spot to launch them back off. You learn the right or best positions on stages in certain MUs (there aren't many due to such a small viable cast) and you go to them when the opponent is at X position off stage. If all his options are crossed off, you react and get the kill. If only some of his options are crossed off, you usually have to read one move at most (the Up B or air dodge). Due to the low amountn of options the opponent even has, it's either you need to move to predict him going for the option you didn't cover, or you predicting he's going to assume you will do that.
There are subtleties sure, but edgeguarding in melee still is in general much easier and simple than it is in Smash 4 where the recoverer has a lot more options to get back (more time in the air, ability to attack back, ability to airdodge freely). I prefer there being a bigger gap between players who can't get kills off stage and those who do risk going off stage and secure a kill. Not to mention all the MUs in melee where being launched off virtually is usually a free kill because the recoverer doesn't have multiple options like a character such as fox usually does, or due to a character like Marth having great edgeguards via fsmash/shieldbreak.
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
I was just trying to say how easy edgeguarding in melee is (I've played melee for a long time on the actual console) even on suboptimal controls, so I don't find it interesting enough (impressive enough) when I watch pros edgeguard. Even easier with a GC controller + CRT.
Right, thing is I don't mind that, because if someone decides to go deep (and risk losing stage control) it's more exciting because it's rarer/risky, and only occasionally/rarely will they grab a kill. I prefer that over melee where quick or easy kills are very frequent and you are dead more than not if launched far off stage, it's just more varied and I prefer that "pyramid" structure over "inverse pyramid" (pyramid = uncommon edgeguard kills, commonly successfully regaining stage control but not without taking lots of damage)
You underestimate how hard it is to edgeguard good players who recover well. The differences in the offstage game in melee are subtle angle/positioning/timing things which make a huge difference but are hard to identify when you're watching the edgeguarder respond perfectly. All you see is "got edgeguarded". You don't see the 90 other players in the top 100 who would have chosen an inferior flowchart.
The result of an edgeguard/recovery attempt is always going to be 1 or 0, but there are a million degrees of room for improvement on either side of it, despite how deceptively simple it looks.
You can say that even more so with Smash 4 then since it's even harder to get a kill no? As both a spectator and a player, I would have to disagree and say it's not as deep as you're saying it is. Hard maybe, but not deep. It's more about positioning, timing, reaction, and execution than it is reading or responding to multiple actions on the spot to launch them back off. You learn the right or best positions on stages in certain MUs (there aren't many due to such a small viable cast) and you go to them when the opponent is at X position off stage. If all his options are crossed off, you react and get the kill. If only some of his options are crossed off, you usually have to read one move at most (the Up B or air dodge). Due to the low amountn of options the opponent even has, it's either you need to move to predict him going for the option you didn't cover, or you predicting he's going to assume you will do that.
There are subtleties sure, but edgeguarding in melee still is in general much easier and simple than it is in Smash 4 where the recoverer has a lot more options to get back (more time in the air, ability to attack back, ability to airdodge freely). I prefer there being a bigger gap between players who can't get kills off stage and those who do risk going off stage and secure a kill. Not to mention all the MUs in melee where being launched off virtually is usually a free kill because the recoverer doesn't have multiple options like a character such as fox usually does, or due to a character like Marth having great edgeguards via fsmash/shieldbreak.
Marth's shieldbreak is not a great edgeguard. It can punish them landing on stage with Up-B lag, but that shouldn't happen unless the edgeguarder has committed to a position that can't punish that in time (unlikely. Up-B on stage is one of the worst possible choices in most cases). Edgeguarding in Melee is definitely about reading. Sometimes when an opponent is recovering, he is not in a position that grants him many options, but in many other cases, a recovering character has enough options that 1 plan cannot cover all of them. Consider the "Ledgeguarding vs. Illusion" section of Kadano's Marth Guide. This is a very specific subset of Melee edgeguarding situations, but it has much variation.
This is more opinion, but because stocks are more fragile in Melee, you encounter high tension in off-the-stage situations because either player is at risk of death. The player getting edgeguarded can even make a sick reversal, like in the ending of this match:
On January 19 2015 19:27 Bacon_Infinity wrote: I have also been getting more interested in checking out competitive smash. I started looking into it when I saw Smash 4 came out but didnt expect that SSBM would still be the preferred eSport
SSBM is superior in almost every way as a competative game. It's faster, deaper, more skillbased, better balanced and has a very established and passionate scene.
There's a lot of movement options and dancing between players and that will allow the better player to bait and punish
you really are downplaying smash 4's current lack of an ground game, the only great technique of real importance known right now is pivoting.
im also entirely confused why smash 4 people call the melee edgeguard game "guaranteed kills", which actually come down to 1. what character you're playing 2. whether the edgeguarder is doing the edgeguarding right 3. whether the edgeguardee is doing recovery positioning right 4. the correct selected option (usually in the most optimal form of sweetspoting + teching + DI) 5. execution, based on pressing the right inputs at the right time in the right position
not all that different from smash 4! the edgeguard metagame in melee has been hashed out through the years, most significantly after 2008. just because we see that 5 gods can edgeguard to perfection doesnt mean the edgeguarding = guaranteed kill.
Oops. Rereading my post, sorry I did go right from mentioning smash 4 to talking about movement options, fixed now. I meant that *melee* has a lot of movement options and dancing between players.
It is impressive, and true not everyone can do that, but after seeing it so many times it just isnt very... exciting to me? I won't deny it doesn't take skill, but a lot of it is you just practice it, where as I'm more interested in Smash 4's edgeguarding because there are more possibilities and options and risks to consider, and that makes it more impressive to me when I see someone get a kill (and if they don't, they still rack up a lot of damage due to having stage advantage). Even I can get a lot of kills edgeguarding, in general edgeguarding is just easy in melee. I play netplay on a keyboard and even so i'm able to get a kill pretty much every time they're launched off, despite me not even practicing or having a controller.
In melee you can mixup your recoveries a bit, and even the best players don't read them right all the time, but I want actual "depth", not just positioning/reaction/tech skill. For example in Smash 4, it's harder to get the kill (which I understand can be more boring as a spectator if you want fast paced action) because recoveries in general are a lot easier and the recoverer can attack back or air dodge. I like this because if an edgeguarder goes deep and actually gets a kill, it is impressive because he made the correct guess or read the opponent right but if he messes up he may lose stage control, where as in Melee it's more about when and how the recoverer recovers (fox up B high or low, or fox side B, or maybe air dodge, or maybe shine to delay falling before using one of those options). It may also be due to the high number of Foxes / and the nature of the recoveries (telegraphed, especially firefox) of the top tier characters, as well as there just being less characters in melee that makes it feel old to me.
I hope that makes some sense? X) I guess I'm saying I like the larger focus on reading and the more improvisation and room for error of Smash 4's edgeguarding, because the edgeguarder has higher risk than in melee and more chances to mess up, and due to the much lower gravity players can afford to attack more off stage. It's more unpredictable, whereas I've seen every possibility in melee. Launching someone back off the stage and denying recovery in melee usually requires just one read, where as in Smash 4 if you want to keep them from touching the stage there are times you have to make multiple reads.
And I do agree that it's not hugely different from Smash 4, since Smash 4 shares a lot of melee-esque elements (you can't rely on snapping the edge all the time due to vulnerability in 4, etc). Instead of arguing Smash 4 is superior to melee [ in edgeguarding], I'd rather like to say that Smash 4 and Melee are similar in a lot of ways, and Melee isn't much better if at all, just different. (Though I prefer 4).
im not sure why you bring netplay experience into it when you really cant judge any smash game at all from netplay. the only somewhat acceptable frame buffers are 0 or 1 and that rarely happens.
and actually from what i've seen and played of smash 4 its much much better to not cede stage control versus going out below the stage
I was just trying to say how easy edgeguarding in melee is (I've played melee for a long time on the actual console) even on suboptimal controls, so I don't find it interesting enough (impressive enough) when I watch pros edgeguard. Even easier with a GC controller + CRT.
Right, thing is I don't mind that, because if someone decides to go deep (and risk losing stage control) it's more exciting because it's rarer/risky, and only occasionally/rarely will they grab a kill. I prefer that over melee where quick or easy kills are very frequent and you are dead more than not if launched far off stage, it's just more varied and I prefer that "pyramid" structure over "inverse pyramid" (pyramid = uncommon edgeguard kills, commonly successfully regaining stage control but not without taking lots of damage)
You underestimate how hard it is to edgeguard good players who recover well. The differences in the offstage game in melee are subtle angle/positioning/timing things which make a huge difference but are hard to identify when you're watching the edgeguarder respond perfectly. All you see is "got edgeguarded". You don't see the 90 other players in the top 100 who would have chosen an inferior flowchart.
The result of an edgeguard/recovery attempt is always going to be 1 or 0, but there are a million degrees of room for improvement on either side of it, despite how deceptively simple it looks.
You can say that even more so with Smash 4 then since it's even harder to get a kill no? As both a spectator and a player, I would have to disagree and say it's not as deep as you're saying it is. Hard maybe, but not deep. It's more about positioning, timing, reaction, and execution than it is reading or responding to multiple actions on the spot to launch them back off. You learn the right or best positions on stages in certain MUs (there aren't many due to such a small viable cast) and you go to them when the opponent is at X position off stage. If all his options are crossed off, you react and get the kill. If only some of his options are crossed off, you usually have to read one move at most (the Up B or air dodge). Due to the low amountn of options the opponent even has, it's either you need to move to predict him going for the option you didn't cover, or you predicting he's going to assume you will do that.
There are subtleties sure, but edgeguarding in melee still is in general much easier and simple than it is in Smash 4 where the recoverer has a lot more options to get back (more time in the air, ability to attack back, ability to airdodge freely). I prefer there being a bigger gap between players who can't get kills off stage and those who do risk going off stage and secure a kill. Not to mention all the MUs in melee where being launched off virtually is usually a free kill because the recoverer doesn't have multiple options like a character such as fox usually does, or due to a character like Marth having great edgeguards via fsmash/shieldbreak.
not sure why you bring up marth's fsmash is an subpar edgeguard as its heavily based on timing/spacing and on top of that easily techable. and shieldbreak is an incredibly matchup situational edgeguard.
edgeguarding in melee is easier because its actually a subgame of melee where as in smash 4 it doesnt even exist, you just let him get on ledge. against good players you actually get punished for trying to hit him offstage which is pretty much like it is in all the other smashes. you can say edgeguarding is easier in melee, but why does that make the game shallower as opposed to deeper?
I'm so surprised that this has devolved into a convo about which game has harder edge guard mechanics...
That said, I think you guys are arguing about it backwards:
If edge guarding in melee is easier than in other games, it's not because of some mechanic that makes it easier to get kills.
It's because of how fucking hard it is to recover correctly. Smash 4 recovery is quite easy. Up+B, and you velcro right to the stage. Smash 4 has completely eliminated the need to learn how to sweet spot, and as a result, difficult things like perfectly spacing your recovery, or ledge-teching edge guards cease to be factors in the conversation.
It's not a question of edge guarding in melee being easy. it's an issue of recovering in melee being hard.
On January 27 2015 07:27 MrBitter wrote: I'm so surprised that this has devolved into a convo about which game has harder edge guard mechanics...
That said, I think you guys are arguing about it backwards:
If edge guarding in melee is easier than in other games, it's not because of some mechanic that makes it easier to get kills.
It's because of how fucking hard it is to recover correctly. Smash 4 recovery is quite easy. Up+B, and you velcro right to the stage. Smash 4 has completely eliminated the need to learn how to sweet spot, and as a result, difficult things like perfectly spacing your recovery, or ledge-teching edge guards cease to be factors in the conversation.
It's not a question of edge guarding in melee being easy. it's an issue of recovering in melee being hard.
EPT
He was the MSL writing team lead immediately before I started covering MSL! I met him at some Norcal tourneys but didn't get to talk to him much 
