Posted by: joekiklis99 | April 24, 2012


So, recently I made the announcement that I will no longer be making movesets for “Brawl”, and rather for “Smash” (more specifically an engine similar to, if not entirely the Project:M engine). I feel that it offers a faster, more balanced experience (in terms of offense and defense) as well as use of both Brawl and Melee’s AT’s for my sets to use to their advantage, that and the feel of “taking the best aspects of each smash game” fits with my view of what MYM is about.

With that said, I’m curious as to what you all think is the setting we put our characters into. Is it the current installation of Smash, and we change as the next one comes out? Your own custom version? Would it be a good idea to say, point out what engine your set is being made for in the description before the moves (that way we could MYM a melee or 64 character!)? Or maybe we as a community could come up with a “MYM Engine” with specific changes and whatnot.

Post your thoughts in the comments!



  1. Um, Joe…all of our movesets are ultimately “on paper” movesets.

    Subtle things like game engines seems to me more relevant to metagames, which from what I know aim to push what the game offers to their limits and beyond. Which would require extensive playtesting. Which is an impossibility for us MYMers. There’s a good chance more than half the sets ever made here won’t work as intended in practice, if they turn out to be practical at all.

    Not to mention that though you could slave hours over every nuance of damage and knockback of each input just so you know the moveset will work as intended no matter the level of play, the dozen of us users who read these sets don’t play the game competitively, let alone to the point where such nuances can be appreciated without the help of a Jun image set to point them out. You could state the 64 engine, Melee’s, Brawl’s or Project: M’s, but most readers are likely to just envision the set on Battlefield playing in their own headcanon Smash Bros. engine, or the one they most remember. Which is very likely to lack many of the subtle techniques hidden in specific game engines.

    My point is, in my opinion, the game engine isn’t really relevant to us unless it affects the number of inputs we’d have to deal with. Competitive usage and value is a nice boon, but it’ll probably never be an important factor in our moveset making.

  2. Well, the engine would effect how the set plays as a whole IMO, for a kind of binary example: two identical sets would have different overall playstyles if one had access to Brawl’s air dodge and momentum cancelling, and the other restricted to directional air dodge and had to DI attacks rather than cancel momentum (in general). Even though those are just two aspects, for say an aerially focused character this could make a huge difference, even if not just for competitive play as anyone would notice these things even when just fooling around.

    But yeah, it doesn’t -really- matter, more a thing of curiosity and potential new creativity with manipulating new/old mechanics into your set’s gameplay πŸ™‚

  3. the dozen of us users who read these sets don’t play the game competitively

    Please stop representing everyone with your words, please.

    • Just because everything is a competition for you doesn’t mean you play everything competitively. And I say that in a completely non-snarky, literal way.


      *cheesy sitcom laughtrack*

    • Warlord, if you didn’t know, there’s only a handful of people in MYM who play it competitively. That’s not even over half the regular users. Stop acting like an elitist.

    • I didn’t say there were more than a handful – just that statement Prof made was all encompassing. In any case, yes, I agree with the overall response to Joe here. As Froy says, though, if he wants to make sets for another form of Smash, let him. He just shouldn’t expect it to become the norm.

    • If I said “all of us users”, I’d be representing everyone. I didn’t include you, Joe or Jun when I said “dozen”.

  4. A dozen MYMers? Actually read sets? That’ll be the day. πŸ˜›

    Anyhow, with regard to the topic of discussion here, I’m pretty set on making sets with the latest official release in mind. I imagine all the movesets I’ve ever made as Brawl movesets, and I expect to transition over to SSB4 movesets when the time comes for that. Although I suspect, like Peanut said, that for most of us it doesn’t really make a difference. But when my sets do require a distinction, such as something with an air dodge working a certain way, personally I always think of things in terms of Brawl.

  5. I’d say it should just by default be Brawl, but feel free to make something for another engine, as long as you specify it. Like, I remember there was a set that made Mario for Street Fighter…

    Just be aware if people have not played the engine, you might not get as many comments as usual.

  6. Roy’s right, I think. The default should be Brawl, as even with incredibly useful information such as JOE’s statistical information, people -still- don’t entirely understand how -that- works. If you wanted to move onto another engine, though, that is obviously fine, as long as it is stated how it is different from Brawl’s.

  7. Deciding on an “engine” is kind of asinine unless it’s a major change like the difference between Brawl and, for instance, Warlord’s old FMA game. You’re very competitive and statistical, JOE, but you’re probably the only one in MYM who thinks that way. It’s better to just incorporate your ideals into a set, because part of MYM is bringing together a whole bunch of ideas into one project.

    Like Professor said, these are all purely hypothetical and engine technicalities are best reserved for actual physical embodiments of MYM movesets. You said anyone can notice these things, but the vast majority of MYM has no idea what momentum cancelling and all of that stuff is. Defensive mechanics in MYM are either limited to spot dodges, rolls, and shields, and the actual set’s moves and statistics.

    It may all sound simple and obvious to someone like you who knows the stuff, but on a whole MYM is very casual with its understanding of Smash, as evidenced by the movesets here. Even Warlord, who claims to be competitive, never talks about L-cancelling and those technicalities in his movesets- we write simple, layman’s movesets for what we all imagine as Brawl. Writing for Melee and 64 seems outdated and somewhat silly- Brawl is the latest, why not use that?

    And as for writing movesets for Project M, that’s a bit too meta for anyone in MYM to actually want to do. I imagine you’re only doing it to be different, or a hipster. Frankly, I don’t see how you’re not getting the same ridicule as Kat when he posted his tangent at the end of Jecht.

    • Well, I never said I’d be forcing anyone else to a new engine, merely stating that I’d prefer my sets (for the time being) to be thought of in an engine I felt was cooler, then asked everyone else if they do anything similar, ie: make sets that aren’t exactly for -Brawl-, but still -Smash-, especially after HR said he had ideas for sets that used different overall physics.

      I don’t see how it’d be too bad as long as it’s specified beforehand that the set is assumed to be played in a (64/Melee/Brawl/P:M/Smash4) setting, with explanation as to how it’s different and such.

      Also, WL doesn’t talk about L-cancelling and the like because those are melee/64 specific techniques.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: