SSBM - Who do you go?

[Sheikah]

No you're talking bollocks. Seriously you're so full of shit.

 

Wow, it seems like someone has got very emotional about a game. Sorry to twang your nerve.

 

For noobs who even have a slightest idea on how to play, Marth is better. Trust me, his f-smash is ALOT quicker and a lot less laggier than Roys, hence why people favour him.

 

Did I say Roy was better? No, so now you are just making a fool of yourself. If you go back and read what I was saying, perhaps you can amend your post.

 

Also, people don't 'train' for hours upon hours. It's a little thing called multiplayer and they just naturally get better with time. Maybe you have friends to play it with or something because you DON'T get better playing by yourself OR by fighting comps.

 

There's no need to be childish and assume things in an insultive way. The fact of the matter is, ranked people or people who train to competitively play (I do know a couple of people) most certainly do train, not just play battle after battle. Mostly because they don't always have someone to play with, but also because simply playing a game would not allow you to master certain techniques (unlike say, practice mode).

 

Also, tournies are generally pretty bloody big for Smash. I mean, you have to remember it was alongside Halo 2 at MLG for 3 years (and this means EVERY MLG event, ie Atlanta, New York, vegas etc) and the game was excepted into Evo and had one of the highest turnouts. Now, when you also consider that there are smashers that travel over Europe to Swedens Euro tourny, then I wouldn't say the turnout was low at ALL.

 

It's definately not 50-50, but it must be ATLEAST 15-20% imo, and you also have to remember about 30% of the people who bought the game aren't into competitve 2d fighters but might still casually play the game and another 20% or so don't play the game much anymore.

 

 

As for the comment on turnups for tournaments, they could be the entire of Wales and that still wouldn't be a dent on the number of people who do not play competetively. Sorry to offend something you probably attend at every given occasion, I am just stating simply and truthfully that like just with most games, people do not play competetively. Yeh I may have said the turnup was pisspoor, probably wrong of me in saying that. But I was actually thinking of them as a comparison to the number of copies of the game sold.

 

And yeh, when I said the guy was talking bollocks, he was. Do you honestly think 50% of people who play SSB play competetively, that is take part in competitions and train using these advanced techniques? Techniques that generally have to be mastered, read online etc. I find it bizarre how you can take me up on telling someone they were wrong for something which they blatantly were.

 

 

It's definately not 50-50, but it must be ATLEAST 15-20% imo, and you also have to remember about 30% of the people who bought the game aren't into competitve 2d fighters but might still casually play the game and another 20% or so don't play the game much anymore.

 

I think you are mistaken about the kinds of players we are talking about. Not competetive as in a group of friends competing with each other (surely this is the case in any game of SSB), I am talking about a different league of players who master moves such as wavedash, who know the ins and outs of different moves and as a result probably go to meetups (otherwise there would be no point in learning to play in such a way, given the chance of randomly coming across people the same, I guess).

[Zell]

Just to clarify, just because someone knows and has learned advanced techniques does not put them among the "tournament crowd". A very small percentage of people that know "wavedash" have ever attended a tournament. They are the ones that "train" and spend hours and hours with the game.

 

Now you say there is "no point" in learning to play in such a way without going to meetups. That is complete bollocks. People have things called friends in which they play with. How does this stop you playing with them? You say it so that wavedash (and the like) is such a hardcore and elitist technique that only the very top can learn it and so they must organise meetups to find other rare players. SSBM advanced techniques aren't actually that difficult to learn. It just takes a bit of effort. I myself learned these techniques, and my friends just followed suit. Really it isn't that hard to learn, so why do you think that such a small percentage of people play with advanced technqiues? You will find that there is a lot more than you think. Don't be confused though, I know these techniques fairly well, but I wouldn't really be good enough for a tournament (well, maybe a UK one, if there ever was one). The only difference would be that I would probably be able to hold my own.

 

I'm also sick of hearing that just because I want to get better at a game, I all of a sudden not playing for fun anymore. Any player, even those who go to tournaments can chose whether to play for laughs, or try their hardest and play competitively. Both are fun (as Jonnas said, different kinds of fun).

[Sheikah]

Just to clarify, just because someone knows and has learned advanced techniques does not put them among the "tournament crowd". A very small percentage of people that know "wavedash" have ever attended a tournament. They are the ones that "train" and spend hours and hours with the game.

 

Ok, perhaps not, nonetheless competetive play (which is what I have being talking about from the very beginning) is the kind of play where you aim to gain ranks and attend meets (in this case, because there is no online play).

 

Now you say there is "no point" in learning to play in such a way without going to meetups. That is complete bollocks. People have things called friends in which they play with. How does this stop you playing with them? You say it so that wavedash (and the like) is such a hardcore and elitist technique that only the very top can learn it and so they must organise meetups to find other rare players. SSBM advanced techniques aren't actually that difficult to learn. It just takes a bit of effort. I myself learned these techniques, and my friends just followed suit. Really it isn't that hard to learn, so why do you think that such a small percentage of people play with advanced technqiues? You will find that there is a lot more than you think. Don't be confused though, I know these techniques fairly well, but I wouldn't really be good enough for a tournament (well, maybe a UK one, if there ever was one). The only difference would be that I would probably be able to hold my own.

 

It's simple. The fact of the matter is, unless you go onto GameFAQs (or a similar place) and purposely look for these techniques, you will more than likely not naturally learn them, and if you did perform one of the techniques by chance there's a good likeliness you would pass it by or not realise how you did it.

 

This massively cuts down on the number of people with the game using those techniques. Not just people without internet access, but laziness and also lack of knowledge of the techniques. The second factor is that if you don't play other people using the techniques (more than likely with everyone I have played with) there is no real incentive for a person to better themself, as they are quite capable of doing well in the games they play already.

 

I'm also sick of hearing that just because I want to get better at a game, I all of a sudden not playing for fun anymore. Any player, even those who go to tournaments can chose whether to play for laughs, or try their hardest and play competitively. Both are fun (as Jonnas said, different kinds of fun).

 

 

Let's stop for a second. The term 'playing for fun' and 'actually having fun' are very different. One clearly expresses a laid back, no consequences or real care for the outcome, where you probably don't put much effort into preparation, whereas the other is an individual's enjoyment.

 

It's like saying the world cup final is 'just for fun' - hell no, but I'm sure the players are having fun (if not crapping themselves).

 

 

I realise that most of the people here are adamant competetive players or technique users, which is why I feel this line of discussion is getting a little biased, heated and ugly. I am only expressing the likeliness of the total number of SSB players, past and present. If you like using techniques, good. Just don't be angry at me when I say it most probably is quite a small percentage of the total players using them (if you consider the number of people who must have owned this game at one point, too).

[Zell]

Ok, perhaps not, nonetheless competetive play (which is what I have being talking about from the very beginning) is the kind of play where you aim to gain ranks and attend meets (in this case, because there is no online play).

 

Well in that case, not that many people play competitively at all. What I'm saying is knowing advanced technqiues and competitve play are different things (you probably know this already, just reiterating).

 

It's simple. The fact of the matter is, unless you go onto GameFAQs (or a similar place) and purposely look for these techniques, you will more than likely not naturally learn them, and if you did perform one of the techniques by chance there's a good likeliness you would pass it by or not realise how you did it.

 

This massively cuts down on the number of people with the game using those techniques. Not just people without internet access, but laziness and also lack of knowledge of the techniques. The second factor is that if you don't play other people using the techniques (more than likely with everyone I have played with) there is no real incentive for a person to better themself, as they are quite capable of doing well in the games they play already.

 

Gamers tend to play in groups. It only takes one person to find out about the techniques and tell all their friends. You don't need everyone to find out for themselves. Once one group of friends know about them, they can then be passed to other people, as gamers aren't limited to the same group of people they always play with.

 

You say there is no incentive if you play with people who don't use them, well I say there is. You find that over the years the game has become stale, you learn these techniques and suddenly the game has new life. You become better than your mates, but that gives them incentive to become just as good as you.

 

Let's stop for a second. The term 'playing for fun' and 'actually having fun' are very different. One clearly expresses a laid back, no consequences or real care for the outcome, where you probably don't put much effort into preparation, whereas the other is an individual's enjoyment.

 

It's like saying the world cup final is 'just for fun' - hell no, but I'm sure the players are having fun (if not crapping themselves).

 

Okay, probably a bit of bad working on my part. We agree that we both play and have fun. Both sets of gamers can also either play competitively or for fun. It's just a common misconception that advanced players never play for fun.

 

I realise that most of the people here are adamant competetive players or technique users, which is why I feel this line of discussion is getting a little biased, heated and ugly. I am only expressing the likeliness of the total number of SSB players, past and present. If you like using techniques, good. Just don't be angry at me when I say it most probably is quite a small percentage of the total players using them (if you consider the number of people who must have owned this game at one point, too).

 

Trust me here, there are about three or four people here who are techniques users. It just so happens that they are willing to argue, because there has been a lot of heat over this debate for God knows how long where a lot of the non-advanced players have given a lot of advanced players a lot of stick. You obviously seem to think that everyone's against you, that's not true.

 

I'm not getting angry at all, I just arguing my points and opinion. We obviously have different views about it, it doesn't mean we have to get all touchy.

[Sheikah]

 

Gamers tend to play in groups. It only takes one person to find out about the techniques and tell all their friends. You don't need everyone to find out for themselves. Once one group of friends know about them, they can then be passed to other people, as gamers aren't limited to the same group of people they always play with.

 

Yeh I realise that, but it still takes the one person to look them up, do them enough until they can perform them well, then for that person to play with people for quite a bit for them to rub off/be picked up. And then there are people who simply cannot be arsed.

 

You say there is no incentive if you play with people who don't use them, well I say there is. You find that over the years the game has become stale, you learn these techniques and suddenly the game has new life. You become better than your mates, but that gives them incentive to become just as good as you.

 

Well SSB does have quite a long life since it can be played countless times with different outcomes. Unfortunately, even with the prospect of learning techniques the game got somewhat boring, since it was essentially the same levels and a game that had been played a lot. It's still fun for a quick duel now and then, but I'm holding out for the Wii version now.

 

 

Okay, probably a bit of bad working on my part. We agree that we both play and have fun. Both sets of gamers can also either play competitively or for fun. It's just a common misconception that advanced players never play for fun.

 

Yeh, no doubt they play for fun too. Probably a bit of bad wording on my part. I honestly meant people who just played without on the fly without any additional technique learning etc; people who consider SSB just another game in their collection to play.

 

 

Trust me here, there are about three or four people here who are techniques users. It just so happens that they are willing to argue, because there has been a lot of heat over this debate for God knows how long where a lot of the non-advanced players have given a lot of advanced players a lot of stick. You obviously seem to think that everyone's against you, that's not true.

 

I'm not getting angry at all, I just arguing my points and opinion. We obviously have different views about it, it doesn't mean we have to get all touchy.

 

 

Sorry, I was referring to Goron_3 who said something like 'you talk a load of shit', and had an angry tone. And, well, when I saw that person 'Marth_player' I honestly didn't expect my opinions on Roy to be well received. :p

[Marthuser]

I think we can go ahead and say from your username you are a bit biased.

 

It also goes on to say that if both characters were used to the full potential, if you use aerial attacks etc then Marth would be better. Basically that's confirmation of what I'm saying- noncompetitive players probably won't have a formulated and researched style, as a result Roy will be stronger in your average match (obviously not at some competetive level).

 

As for the techniques, honestly, the amount who must have used gamefaqs or some other related site to read techniques and then practiced over them at most must be 0.1%, although is probably a hell of a lot lower, simply because there are far fewer 'game nerds' (sorry to brand this so harshly) than people who just play the games for fun, alongside all the other console's games.

 

I honestly, honestly cannot see 50% of people - what's that, millions of people, brushing up on gamefaqs on how to use wavedash etc, then going to their gc/wii and spending hour upon hour (on a game that was released years and years ago) to 'train' their characters, yet at competitions the turnout is generally pisspoor.

 

Sorry, you talk bollocks.

 

Ok......first of all, I don't see how my username gives me bias.

 

Second, I didn't actually say I agreed with what the link said. I only said to go there for a list of all the moves and howmuch damage they do.

 

Thirdly, what I'm trying to prove is that 'newbs' think that Roy is better than Marth, when in reality, Marth is better. (Which has been proved).

 

Finally, I made three points in my last post. Marth was stronger. Being 'in the fray' is a disadvantage and that for 50% of players wavedashing is irrelevant.

 

Zell already talked about gamers in groups and you said that it would take some time for the techniques to 'rub off'. If you saw your friend doing something completely weird and giving him an advantage, wouldn't you be curious? Wouldn't your friend be compelled to tell you all about this new technique? It won't take that much time at all.

 

Like I said, 50% was a figure I pulled out of the air, but I'm sure that for around that number of people, wavedashing is known about, at least.

 

Besides, I don't think there really is a need to use Wavedash, SHFFL, L-cancel, etc. I have seen a few tourney matches via youtube that didn't use them.

Sure, the players had an excellent control of air-dodge, prediction and amazing combos, but they were the best that they could be, without utilising the "advanced" techniques. :wink:

 

There is no need for advanced techniques, unless of course, you want to play at a higher level.

[Zelda_Rulez]

I used to main Ganondorf but lately I have switched to Marth. I liked Ganondorf's power but I like the speed of Marth a bit more. There are a few other character I can play as but I'm not as good with them.

 

I don't get a lot of practise because my friends aren't really good at this game but I can do some of the advanced techniques. Wavedashing never seemed really useful to me because I can't seem to do an attack out of it.

 

Currently I'm trying to get SHHFL-ing down. It's difficult because I really have to tap the jump button so lightly or else he will jump too high, that's the only real problem though. :p

[Tales]

I have always used Bowser. He looks strong and tough, so I guess he must be :P

[Ginger_Chris]

Hey, I've been following this discussion for a while and I really don't understand how you think 50% or even 5% of players know how to wavedash. Most people who bough this game play if for a quick laugh game. Its not about who wins, its about which idiot forgot about the motion sensor, or had the most ammusing death, the best smack talk, beating someone with pichu etc. Yes everyone tries to win, but unless you have a group of friends that take it seriously to win, you're not going to bother to learn how to wavedash. I play all the time with my mates, and we all know about wavedashing, but none of us can be bothered to practice and learn how to use it, because winning isn't the part that's the most fun.

 

 

I see wavedashing in SSMB just like I see the snake in Table football. How many people play table football occasionally? Millions. How many know what a snake is? I'd guess about 100,000 probably less. How many can do it well? about 5000 maybe less? Every single person who is a pro can do it. It's not something you'll ever think about doing if you'd never seen it before, and anyone who's good enough to do it will beat any casual player without it. Of all the people who know what it is, not that many can do it effectively or want to learn. Personally I prefer the wrench which is easier, and faster to set up (slows game down less) and looks pretty much identical. Just because I know alot of people who can snake it doesn't mean I think lots of people who play casually in pubs do.

 

If Brawl is online, I expect these types of skills will definitely increase. Everyone will start wanting to win (thats more the point of playing online) and most people will start playing people that can wavedash and L cancel. That will increase there exposure and so more people will want to learn them. Just like every other multiplayer game.

[Goron_3]

Just so people know, you don't have to go online to find out how to do these moves...

 

L-cancelling and teching are already done by computers, and even wall teching in other cases. Most of competitve play is knowing how to do combos and how to read your opponent. The 'wavedash' is the ONLY technique where people learnt it by 'word of mouth' because the computers don't use it but they use all the other techniques, even DI.

 

Also, smash has sold what, 6 million worldwide? Now, about 1/6 of those people will play the game regulary right? Now, im sure about its about 50% of those players who play competitively.

 

Also, playing competitively doesn't mean you have to play to win. I play smash because it pushes the boundries of my gaming abilities and i find this incredibly fun. When I play Zell for example, not only am I having to think what I'm going to do next, I have to quickly perform the action with my fingers. Now, sometimes this can involve pressing around 6-7 buttons a second, and playing at this pace for a few minutes and understanding how I react to other players, aswell as being successful (or not) is great fun. Whilst games like Mario Strikers are great for mindless fun (seeing as there's no depth), Melee offers me complete freedom to do whatever i ever I want for 60 frames every second with so much scope of what I can do. At the end of the day, I love playing melee because it's challenging and pushes me more than any other games I ever have played.

 

Also, i've never attended a tournament, mainly because they are ALL in London and the national ones are really far away. If i went, I'd go for the fun value as I'm pretty sure i wouldn't have a chance of winning until my 4th-5th tourney after i've learnt alot more about my opponents and also my own ability.

[Marthuser]

Hey, I've been following this discussion for a while and I really don't understand how you think 50% or even 5% of players know how to wavedash.

 

I said that for around that many people, wavedashing isn't irrelevant. It's known about, at least.

[Kirbii]

yoshi and kirby are the best

[Ellmeister]

I can't be bothered to read all your supoer omg long posts. Although I did read chris's and I really want to know what the snake and the wrench is now! >_< telllll meeeeeeeee!

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Guys, try to calm down. It IS, after all, only a game.

 

Personally, I find Marth much better at one-on-one matches, as his long reach and speed makes him good at evading a single enemy and attacking him at a distance.

 

Roy, on the other hand, is better at multiplayer brawls, as he's generally more powerful (i.e. deals more damage) and is stronger in very close combat.

[Marthuser]

Guys, try to calm down. It IS, after all, only a game.

Roy, on the other hand, is better at multiplayer brawls, as he's generally more powerful (i.e. deals more damage) and is stronger in very close combat.

 

Marth actually does more damage....

[Jonnas]

Marth actually does more damage....

 

He meant in Free-For-Alls.

It's easier to deal more damage with Roy in that kind of matches.

[Goron_3]

God why does this thread keep popping back up all the time.

 

In free for all amongst noobs, roy will probably do more. versus people who can dodge marth will easily do more damage cos he has the most range.

[Marthuser]

He meant in Free-For-Alls.

It's easier to deal more damage with Roy in that kind of matches.

 

How so? He's slower and deals less damage.