Forum:Brawl+ Discussion

Forums: Index → Brawl Talk → Brawl+ Discussion

This. Discuss please.

Also, it is NOT Melee 2.0. NO. NO NO NO. There are hacks out there that can be used to turn Brawl into a Melee 2.0-ish game, but Brawl+ is not the same thing. NO. Shade487z 13:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm.. Actually, I've read the article and... many (just about 99% ^^) of the listed changes are taken from Melee. Who should I trust : Me or You disclaimers ? I think I should stay on the fact that Brawl+ is Melee 2.0 ;) Metalink187 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's think about that for a second, shall we? I could understand if the Wavedashing and L-Cancel codes were still implemented, but a lot of stuff added to Brawl+ could also be found in SSB64. Hitstun, more gravity, faster speed...Melee may have these features, but Melee's also the more competitive game. So if they're trying to make Brawl+ more competitive, then it only makes sense that those features would obviously be present. If they were trying to make a Melee 2.0, I can imagine many other changes that would be present...

• Obviously, the Wavedashing and L-Canceling would still be back in
• You couldn't grab the ledge while facing away
• They'd try to change Falco back to his Melee self
• They'd de-gay Final Destination's ledges
• They would try to change the characters to match Melee's tier list. Captain Falcon may finally be good like he was in Melee, but that's more of an attempt to make him actually tourney-viable than it is to make him a Melee-esque character. In Brawl+, the roster is becoming BALANCED.

Let's not forget something else that made top-level competition so skill-oriented in Melee: Shine Cancel. Surely anyone trying to emulate Melee would put that in there.

Not only that, but that article's far from perfect. I should know, I wrote it. :/ Shade487z 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Brawl+ may not be Melee 2.0, but the fact that a bunch of the edits re-implement things that were in Melee is enough to convince anyone who doesn't like the idea.

As for my opinion on it...I don't really care. If people want to mess with their own stuff, that's fine with me. All I can hope for is that Nintendo doesn't follow their lead and make the next Smash Bros. more competitive - they may be the most vocal fans, but they are in the minority. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 15:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiplayer games are meant to be competitive. That's one of the very definitions of the word. Shade487z 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's okay for a game to have a level of competitiveness. But once people start playing it for fame and money, then it gets a lot more important for a game to be "fair" and "balanced". And for good reason; you don't want freak accidents to determine who gets more prestige and cash. The thing is, to people who don't participate in tournaments and just play for fun (which is the majority), decreasing the craziness factor of a game is considered "less fun". Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 19:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

^w00t I'm in the majority!L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...} 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They're called Items and crazy stages. Shade487z 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

All items. Pichu only. Brinstar Depths. Fun is more important than tournament stuff. I'd rather have fun than win. So to people who care only about winning these games -- you're missing the point. (P.S. I don't care if others hack, but I frown on its usage when I'm playing.) Miles (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

@Shade: If the Brawl+ article is correct, the aforementioned "crazy stages" are frozen, essentially destroying craziness and anything that sets it apart from any other tournament-legal stage, gameplay-wise.

@Miles: THANK YOU! Someone who understands!L33t Silvie ^{I see wat u did thar...} 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Only the stages that actually have a default shape that would make for a good competitive stage were frozen. Mushroomy Kingdom: untouched. Temple: untouched. Flat Zone 2: untouched. Hanenbow: untouched. Actually, I see Spear Pillar being turned back into a crazy stage eventually. Those ceiling spikes are the same reason Skyworld is banned from competitive play, and you can't change that in Brawl+ unless they were to, say, make the hole that randomly appears in the center a permanent effect. Highly unlikely though. Shade487z 01:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, Brawl+ isn't necessarily Melee 2.0 but it is more like Melee that vBrawl is. Y462 (T • C • E ) 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who is talking about "fun" is missing the point here, or are completely self-centered. You see, I find Brawl+ much more "fun" than regular Brawl. I don't really give a damn if Nintendo didn't design the game that way because, in my opinion, Nintendo's physics system and other things pretty much suck compared to the hacks. I also don't care if you disagree with me, as "fun" is a subjective variable anyway. Also, to anyone who has some anecdotal evidence about how "most" people who play Smash don't care at all about competition, I can counter with countless anecdotes (and non-anecdotal, and therefore superior, evidence) to the contrary. As for the actual discussion of Brawl+, what exactly are you wanting discussion on? The different physics, the changes to characters, a possible tier list...? Give me something to go on and I'm happy to discuss in between composing. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This was meant for people to post their opinions on the project, its progress, what they like/dislike about it, a place to ask around if curious about certain features not listed in the article, etc. It's also a great place for me to round up all the people who dislike the game without actually legit reasons and show them which of their assumptions are false and which are true. Catch my drift? Shade487z 02:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

All right, start actual discussion on content: hitstun! Personally, being much better at Brawl than Melee, I prefer a lower hitstun than Melee has, but not quite as low as Brawl (I imagine between +4-8%, I haven't actually tried it). If anyone's geeky enough to listen to the SMYN podcasts, you may know that at +10% hitstun, C Falc can infinite almost any character with SHFFL'd U-Airs. Now, IMO, that's not exactly what you'd call fair. Opinions? (Also, is there any news about Homebrew being compatible with the menu version 4.0? I upgraded before I heard about Brawl+) Meta-Kirb (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

According to the Brawl+ nightly builds site, hitstun was changed from Brawl's .48 to .4865. That doesn't sound like much but it's actually a very noticeable change, as seen by the true combos. I think it could use a little more hitstun but not much. As far as getting Brawl+ with 4.0, go search for something called banner bomb. It's not homebrew but it does have Gecko, which is what you really need. I don't know much about it myself because got Homebrew back when the latest version was 3.whatever that number was. Shade487z 02:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are "true combos" so important? Not being a tournament nut, I have no idea how it's good for a metagame to have inescapable combos. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 13:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, doing true combos are hella satisfying. Second, true combos allow for much more damage to be inflicted on an opponent without the risk of counterattack, and many combos have finishers that can usually guarantee a KO. In vBrawl, there's almost always a way to break out of combos, so the risk of being counterattacked is always eminent. That's why vBrawl has been called things like "A camp-fest" or "a game of tag". Shade487z 19:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe that's why I've been losing so much recently. I might be overly aggressive. - GalaxiaD ^Talk 20:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)