Super Smash Brothers Brawl

[zidart]

i agree but some of his attacks are really strong...short range is his weakness while strenght is his virtue, this is all to keep balanced characters

[Afrobean]

I had a bit of trouble when I got Lucario randomly chosen for me, and it really seems like all of his ground attacks are utterly worthless for specifically the reason Squeek said.

His B seemed to be pretty useful for the same reason I've taken to using Pikachu's B, but it's not enough when his ground attacks are so bad. Seriously, his aerial down A is good, but he's so floaty and I seem to recall having a hard time timing it properly (and I already have problem timing many aerials, particularly meteor smashes, regardless of silly floaty jumps). And unless I'm mistaken, his floatiness also caused problems for me to time his other aerials as well.

And to be totally honest, I didn't even notice getting stronger or anything as I took more damage. It should be MUCH more of it, because at present even heavy damage (ie enough to be on the verge of death) isn't even all that much of a difference.

ps I tried his down B more than a few times because I figured it was a counter like the Fire Emblem kids, but couldn't get it to work for me at all

pps i was doing a 1 on 1 versus a level 9 CPU randomly chosen when I played as Lucario, and I won it. Incidentally, I later got Jigglypuff randomly chosen for me and LOST rofl... I thought Jigglypuff's aerials had high priority what happen main screen etc etc

[Squeek]

His version of counter (Double Team) is extremely useful for boss and mini-boss SSE trophy collection. Since you can't use A-attacks and sometimes you just have to bring trophy stands into the fight with you.

I recall only using down+b when I was fighting Greap (the big roll-y thing with two axes mounted on it). No time to use any other attacks.

[MystictheHedgehog]

When fighting a good Lucario, it seems that the time window to counter is bigger than that of Marth or Ike, just slightly harder to time...I could be completely wrong there. I hate playing against Lucario though, especially someone who knows how to use him. But I suck with him...he is too...I don't know. I stick to Toon Link, Marth, Pit, and Pikachu for the majority anyway.

[Shoe The Almighty]

Lucario seems like a more kickass version of Mewtwo. Lucario has good moves, but he's to slow to me.....and annoying. I swear that any character my friend Luis picks, he makes it annoying. Since he picks Lucario most of the time, it's his annyoing character.

Ahem (http://www.ffr4.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=91270)

[Flaming_Dingleberry]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Ok?

You might not have mastered his arrows in your time playing, but they can go as far as you could possibly want them to.


Yeah, a lot of characters have up B that aren't useful in dealing damage.

Oh and hey, I was talking to banditcom earlier and he told me about how Pikachu can use his Up B into the ground and go into an attack from there. I don't think it's all that useful, and is more trouble than it's worth, however, I get the feeling that I'm overlooking something. Does anyone have any input here?

I'm not too big on projectiles, except R.O.B.'s spinning tops or lasers. I haven't looked at how much damage it does, but it would have to do quite a bit for me to use it. I use Pikachu's up B as if it were Fox's side B, except he can do it twice and end up in the same place he was before.

[Telvanni_guard]

Ignore damage and look more into spacing. Meaning you control what distance you fight at.

[zidart]

Originally Posted by Telvanni_guard

Ignore damage and look more into spacing. Meaning you control what distance you fight at.

that's all there is to it when it comes to using lucario. though personally i don't really use lucario that much if i get a random match with him i wouldn't complain either

[ducky285]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

Oh and hey, I was talking to banditcom earlier and he told me about how Pikachu can use his Up B into the ground and go into an attack from there. I don't think it's all that useful, and is more trouble than it's worth, however, I get the feeling that I'm overlooking something. Does anyone have any input here?

It's called a Quick Attack Cancel (QAC) and it gives him a great approach against campers. QAC into d-smash is nuts.

Also, on the subject of Lucario, his power is severely lacking until he's at high damage which is why I don't like using him. His Aura Sphere is an OK projectile but it has crap priority. Even at full power, 180% damage, a simple jab or normally weak projectile with cancel it out completely.

The one thing I do like it his air game. It feels pretty smooth and you can SHFF with d-airs and f-airs. I also heard you can chaingrab with side-B (Force Palm up-close) at low percentages.

[korny]

Lucario's counter is pretty much useless if you figure out the timing to dodge it.

[zidart]

Originally Posted by korny

Lucario's counter is pretty much useless if you figure out the timing to dodge it.

ohh but there always ways to suprise people... then again it is useless if you just grab him on the ground (on the air just wait)

[ducky285]

IIRC one of Lucario's taunts kinda looks like the counter. Possibly a way to juke your opponent? Or am I not remembering his taunt correctly? XD

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by ducky285

It's called a Quick Attack Cancel (QAC) and it gives him a great approach against campers. QAC into d-smash is nuts.

You say that like that name is OFFICIAL or something.

But wait. How can you do it into ground moves? All I've gotten out of it is down aerial slamming instantly into the ground, and a little bobbing flip thing that I don't think is even an attack.

Also, when you say "camper" what specifically do you mean by it? People guarding the edge (not grabbing the edge to block it, but literally guarding it and attacking you as you approach the edge to return).

EDIT: I just googled it and got this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GshUovlVOew

Seeing this used like that makes me feel that I'd be cheating as much as wavedashers if I used this against someone.

[korny]

Why would you feel like you're cheating if all you're doing is utilizing one of your special attacks to move faster and more effective? I'm glad i watched that video because i now know to use my pikachu better.

[zidart]

nah that's not actually cheating, that's his up-B move, it doesn't look like a glitch either, oh well each one on their own, the objective is to play in a fun way. if you like it just keep playing like you want

[ducky285]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

You say that like that name is OFFICIAL or something.

But wait. How can you do it into ground moves? All I've gotten out of it is down aerial slamming instantly into the ground, and a little bobbing flip thing that I don't think is even an attack.

Also, when you say "camper" what specifically do you mean by it? People guarding the edge (not grabbing the edge to block it, but literally guarding it and attacking you as you approach the edge to return).

EDIT: I just googled it and got this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GshUovlVOew

Seeing this used like that makes me feel that I'd be cheating as much as wavedashers if I used this against someone.

It's not official, it's just what people call it. Not like it's a crazy unrelated name. It's canceling the Quick Attack by directing it into the ground. I don't see the problem with calling it that. :/

And it's not cheating. It takes practice to incorporate that into your game in a way that helps you. Pikachu is not the only one who has a move like that. If DK and Bowser land during their Up-B moves before they end, they have almost no lag. What makes Pika's so good is that the Quick Attack is...well...quick. And you can direct it into the ground.

I would learn how to use it. Why ignore an attack because you have some sort of qualm over it being "cheap". Not like it grants you an instant KO, nor is it impossible to defend or counter. It's an option that might help your game, regardless of whether or not you want to compete. I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't see any reason why doing this would be considered cheating.

And to clarify, campers are basically players who stay away and throw projectiles while positioned in the same spot until someone approaches. They either punish the approach with a high priority attack (Pit is a prime example) or run away and start camping from the other side of the stage. It sounds cheap but it's a legitimate strategy. It just makes matches boring and annoying. A lot of people are figuring out ways to beat campers, though. The QAC is Pika's best approach against such strategies.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by ducky285

And it's not cheating.

Perhaps not, but when seeing it used in the way it is in that video, it makes it apparent that this was almost assuredly not an intended use of the skillset, and is, instead, an abuse of the physics engine.

I'm specifically talking about the up B leading into more up B. It just looks unfair, although I do realize that using it in that way doesn't even give a heavy advantage because of it. I guess I just mean that, like, if the designers had wanted Pikachu to have 3 or more "attacks" to his up B, they would have made it possible to do more than 1 additional "attack" NORMALLY.

I would learn how to use it. Why ignore an attack because you have some sort of qualm over it being "cheap".

I never said I wouldn't learn it. I just said that I would feel like I'm cheating if I used it against someone. Although, to be honest, I doubt if I'd ever learn enough of it to use it in the way the video maker did, but perhaps just enough to take it from barely being able to time it, and hardly hitting the sandbag in practice mode (waiting for online), to at least landing a hit on my opponent sometimes with it.

Like, I was totally against wave dashing too, but I still fooled around with it and knew how to do it once I actually investigated HOW to do it. Like, I wouldn't use wave dashing to be honest simply because I wasn't that good at it (and frankly, Pikachu didn't have a whole lot of room to slide anyway), but were I good at it, and I was playing against someone who I would only be able to compete with on a reasonable level if I used it, I would pretty much have to. However, I'd rather not even put myself in that sort of a position where I would feel like I would need to abuse the game's physics in an unintended way just to stand a chance of winning.

Not like it grants you an instant KO, nor is it impossible to defend or counter. It's an option that might help your game, regardless of whether or not you want to compete. I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't see any reason why doing this would be considered cheating.

Either way, this takes the fighting style in a direction I don't like. Lately, I've been taking to abusing Pikachu's neutral B to apply minimal damage or call my opponent to action, and if I took to using this tactic heavily, I wouldn't be able to use neutral B in the same way because I'd be too busy flying all over the place with my up B.

I like dashing around, jumping and forward/back aerials. I like spamming neutral Bs, then dashing in and smashing away. I like rolling around trying to find my way into a hole in my opponent's defense, then dropping a forward smash on them. I like knocking my opponent up with my down smash, then finding where they are above the screen and getting them in a down B.

And to clarify, campers are basically players who stay away and throw projectiles while positioned in the same spot until someone approaches. They either punish the approach with a high priority attack (Pit is a prime example) or run away and start camping from the other side of the stage. It sounds cheap but it's a legitimate strategy. It just makes matches boring and annoying. A lot of people are figuring out ways to beat campers, though. The QAC is Pika's best approach against such strategies.

Haha. I had a friend doing that earlier with Pit, but to be honest, I do a similar sort of thing with Pikachu's neutral B to motivate my opponent to do things. Either way, neither of us used that EXCLUSIVELY, and just used it as a means to pull the action back together rather than maintaining heavy distance between the both of us.

And yeah, if someone beat me as Pit thanks to just staying away from me and spamming arrows at me, I certainly wouldn't consider it a legitimate defeat. It's one thing to use the arrows to pull your opponent toward you or something, but it's another to use it to risklessly deal a bunch of damage over a long period of time.

it doesn't look like a glitch either

Did you see them using it combo'd into another set of up B?

[MrGiggles]

Pit's infinite jump is positively infuriatiang. I love playing as Pit.

That Pikachu movie is pretty incredible though. I really want to try that out.

[Sir_Thomas]

Originally Posted by ducky285

It's not official, it's just what people call it. Not like it's a crazy unrelated name. It's canceling the Quick Attack by directing it into the ground. I don't see the problem with calling it that. :/

And it's not cheating. It takes practice to incorporate that into your game in a way that helps you. Pikachu is not the only one who has a move like that. If DK and Bowser land during their Up-B moves before they end, they have almost no lag. What makes Pika's so good is that the Quick Attack is...well...quick. And you can direct it into the ground.

I would learn how to use it. Why ignore an attack because you have some sort of qualm over it being "cheap". Not like it grants you an instant KO, nor is it impossible to defend or counter. It's an option that might help your game, regardless of whether or not you want to compete. I'm not trying to start an argument but I don't see any reason why doing this would be considered cheating.

And to clarify, campers are basically players who stay away and throw projectiles while positioned in the same spot until someone approaches. They either punish the approach with a high priority attack (Pit is a prime example) or run away and start camping from the other side of the stage. It sounds cheap but it's a legitimate strategy. It just makes matches boring and annoying. A lot of people are figuring out ways to beat campers, though. The QAC is Pika's best approach against such strategies.

I dont think this is abuse of the physics engine. It doesnt matter how a set of actions are intended to be used really. A sword is meant to stab someone. If you balance on a sword to reach something, well then good for you.

Ducky... Just because something takes practice to incorporate it into there gameplay does not make it fair. Using cheats takes certain practice to incorporate it into unfair gameplay as well. What makes something cheat isnt how hard it is to use. Cheating is when you do or use something that is not intended to be done/used in a game. Glitches that were accidently put in game are not intended for use. It was a mistake. Just because it takes time to learn how to use a said glitch or bug does not make it ok.

Really, its an issue if its really a glitch. If not; I find it fair.

[Afrobean]

I dont think this is abuse of the physics engine. It doesnt matter how a set of actions are intended to be used really. A sword is meant to stab someone. If you balance on a sword to reach something, well then good for you.

I agree, actually, but when the issue becomes using a split second of "airtime" after "jumping" toward the ground to allow yourself to open into ANOTHER jump (which in turn could also be chained into the ground into more jumps...), it's just plainly obvious that this is not the reason why they added this split second of airtime upon up+b-ing into the ground. It's the same thing as wavedashing, using the landing mechanics in a way which was surely not an intended use of the landing mechanics.

A good example of something like this that I would consider totally right despite not necessarily being intended would be like Samus or Link's selfdestruct being used as a means of "infinite" recovery. That's using an intended feature of gameplay in another way, while at the same time, not abusing anything which could be argued as a potential programming oversight.