Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
Soon™ I'm going to be starting a series of articles about Smash and I want to discuss Wobbling in an extremely in-depth and informed way. My question as stated above is: which is harder to do in a real match, wobbling or the freeze glitch? If you want a gold star, please explain why. I'm hoping this is a matter of opinion, but it may not be.
These answers will greatly help me in my data digging regarding wobbling and its use competitively, as well as its legality.
Also, please consider the differences in usefulness of these two things. Both lead to a KO if done right, but I'm interested in learning why one would be favored over the other if both were legal.
Freeze glitch is more random to set up compered to wobbling. As far as I know you need to have Nana throw the other player just as you (Popo) do a side-b. You can make Nana grab and throw the other player by doing a hand off first (which is a trick that is character dependent and has a quite strict timing window), but because it's random which direction Nana will throw (unless you stand near an edge) it's pretty much impossible to set up consistently (you want Nana do to a f-throw). However, once you have done the glitch you can't mess up. With wobbling you can mess up even if you get the set up if your rhythm is off.
I'd say wobbling is better just because it's possible to do it consistently. Which one that is easier to do depends on the situation (e.g. the location on the stage you get the grab, the other player's %, the character you're playing against). If you get a grab at low % near the edge against a character that's easy to regrab (hand off) then Freeze glitch becomes a quite solid choice. However, wobbling would still work here and is better in pretty much every situation, specially if you get a grab at high % (shouldn't matter, but it makes it easier. Also, getting a hand off regrab becomes harder at higher %). On the other side, if you tend to screw up your wobbling timing midway a lot, then it might be better to just go for the freeze glitch.
Freeze glitch is more random to set up compered to wobbling. As far as I know you need to have Nana throw the other player just as you (Popo) do a side-b. You can make Nana grab and throw the other player by doing a hand off first (which is a trick that is character dependent and has a quite strict timing window), but because it's random which direction Nana will throw (unless you stand near an edge) it's pretty much impossible to set up consistently (you want Nana do to a f-throw). However, once you have done the glitch you can't mess up. With wobbling you can mess up even if you get the set up if your rhythm is off.
I'd say wobbling is better just because it's possible to do it consistently. Which one that is easier to do depends on the situation (e.g. the location on the stage you get the grab, the other player's %, the character you're playing against). If you get a grab at low % near the edge against a character that's easy to regrab (hand off) then Freeze glitch becomes a quite solid choice. However, wobbling would still work here and is better in pretty much every situation, specially if you get a grab at high % (shouldn't matter, but it makes it easier. Also, getting a hand off regrab becomes harder at higher %). On the other side, if you tend to screw up your wobbling timing midway a lot, then it might be better to just go for the freeze glitch.
Thanks for the reply. I should have stated in the OP that I'm very familiar with both, and their uses. I wish there was some magic phrase that meant "I know everything I'll ever need to know about Melee", that people could use when they want to talk advanced stuff. Haha
Anyway! That is surely the type of response I'm looking for. I'm really interested in moving forward the discussion about wobbling in competitive play, and intend to discuss alternatives, player opinions, actual applications (aka have some people play where the FG is allowed and see if it's "game breaking") etc. I'm even possibly leaning toward tossing around the argument "If wobbling is allowed, why not the FG?". At this point in competitive melee, it's an extremely important question to ask once in awhile. We need to constantly be reevaluating our blanket decisions, especially those that affect the way the game is played on a holistic level.
If you could provide any insight on any of that, personal or otherwise. I'd greatly appreciate it.
Thanks for the reply. I should have stated in the OP that I'm very familiar with both, and their uses. I wish there was some magic phrase that meant "I know everything I'll ever need to know about Melee", that people could use when they want to talk advanced stuff. Haha
Anyway! That is surely the type of response I'm looking for. I'm really interested in moving forward the discussion about wobbling in competitive play, and intend to discuss alternatives, player opinions, actual applications (aka have some people play where the FG is allowed and see if it's "game breaking") etc. I'm even possibly leaning toward tossing around the argument "If wobbling is allowed, why not the FG?". At this point in competitive melee, it's an extremely important question to ask once in awhile. We need to constantly be reevaluating our blanket decisions, especially those that affect the way the game is played on a holistic level.
If you could provide any insight on any of that, personal or otherwise. I'd greatly appreciate it.
Just to make sure, did you check out the guide I linked to? It isn't just a standard "How to" guide. It actually covers most of the aspects you asked for like wobbling's legality (section VI), how hard it is to do (section II), and what it does to the meta game (III and IV).
Anyway, one of the two main reasons why FG is banned more often than wobbling is simply because it way easier to ban. It's easy to see if someone did the FG as it's more well defined compered to wobbling. Like, it's easy to pause the game and call over a TO if someone uses the glitch. This isn't the case with wobbling, as you'll know if you've read through the last section of the guide I linked to. As I argue in the guide, it's more or less impossible to ban wobbling in a way that would work out in a tournament setting. To the question "is he doing the FG right now?" it's easy to answer "yes" or "no". The question "is he wobbling right now?" it isn't as simple to answer because the distinction between "yes" or "no" isn't as clear.
The second reason is that with the FG you could potentially stall the match for a time out if you use the glitch while you have the lead. Of course it's possible to make a rule like you need to go for the KO once you reach a certain %, but it's really difficult to make a rule about how fast you should rank up damage. This isn't a problem with wobbling (at least not to the same extent) because you have to keep up hitting your opponent in order to make the infinite work. A rule like "wobbling is allowed until 300%" works well, while a rule like "you can rank up % until 300% with the FG before you have to go for a KO" wouldn't work because of the possibility of stalling.
So yeah, FG is more "game breaking" than wobbling because of the possibility of stalling which is hard to get around theoretically. Furthermore, it's way easier to ban FG than wobbling.
Sorry! I forgot to mention that I didn't have time to watch the video last night! I worked a long day and was in bed replying, and half falling asleep haha. I will definitely watch it this evening to further the informed nature of my responses.
Anywho, I appreciate the input and if you don't mind, I'd like to use some of the information provided in my article (keep in mind that I'm not sponsored or even well known anymore, so it may not even get exposure, but who knows).
Regarding your reply specifically, how do you objectively feel about wobbling and the FG? How about as a spectator vs a player (if these are answered in your video, I'm sorry, just let me know and I'll wait until later to get my answers)? Do you feel there are ANY rule implementations that could possibly change the legality of either technique? (ie: once the FG is achieved, a player must use all means necessary to attempt to reach above 150% or; a player must inform a TO that they are aware of how to do the glitch and may use it in their match, and then the TO enforces the no stalling tactic. There are of course several variations to these types of rules and I'm interested in discussing them all). Can I get your opinion on whether or not wobbling will be legal forever? Maybe in 20XX (god forbid) ICs players are so good that EVERY grab leads to a KO every time and something must be done?
My point in all of this is to really push to define the boundaries of how we write smash "legislation" and to explore this whole wobbling thing from a 2014 perspective. Again, thanks for the reply.
Maybe in 20XX (god forbid) ICs players are so good that EVERY grab leads to a KO every time and something must be done?
I'm actually trying to come up with techniques that will make it possible to get a wobbling going from pretty much any (relevant) type of grab and I've done a lot of process so far. I think ICs can still be a viable character in the 20XX meta game once people start to integrate different concepts of fast wobbling set-ups into their game among other stuff #OffTopic #PossiblyNewGuideIncoming
I think a rule like "You have to go for a KO within the next x seconds after using the FG" could work out to avoid stalling.
Anyway, about wobbling.
First, in order to ban anything there needs it be a reasonable argument for the ban which there, according to me, isn't when it comes to wobbling. People say that wobbling is "game breaking", that it doesn't fit into the game, that it's boring and ruins the flow of the match, and that it's a broken technique that is too powerful. I think that all of those are invalid arguments and not sufficient to make a ban. 1) wobbling isn't overpowered because ICs isn't overpowered, with or without wobbling, 2) what that fits into the game or "feels right" is a subjective consideration and will vary from person to person, 3) wobbling is a guaranteed "combo" if done properly, but so is quite a bit of other stuff in the game. Wether or not wobbling is easier than other guaranteed stuff shouldn't make a difference, just as how entertaining it is shouldn't matter (I for one think wobbling can be pretty hype, just watch Wobbles v. Mango @ Evo2013)
Second, in order to ban wobbling to need to 1) find a proper definition of it, 2) figure out for how long you're allowed to do any type of grab/pummel-combo your opponent can't get out of by mashing (ICs can create an infinite with pummel and any of the following moves: f-tilt, d-tilt, jabs, blizzard), and 3) you need to do this in a way that is practical and can work out in a tournament setting.
What is the definition of an infinite?
You can’t ban wobbling because there isn’t a clear definition of it. This might sound silly to some, but it’s actually a big deal. The borderline between “wobbling” and “not wobbling” isn’t clear. Grab into blizzard, a trick that has been known and used by IC players since the early years of the game, is inescapable while it’s on once the blizzard connects, however, nobody want this to be banned. So when talking about banning wobbling you first have to figure out how long ICs should be allowed to hold/infinite you, which lead us to the next main problem of the discussion.
Why are two tilts fairer than three?
F-tilt, d-tilt, and blizzard are all moves that combined with head butting/pummeling can lock a character in hit stun so that it can’t escape a grab. Now, some people suggest that a way to limit wobbling is to say you’re only allowed to do these moves a certain number of times before you have to do a throw. However, while the idea is fine, it is far from flawless. First you have to decide how many tilts and blizzard you should be able to do, which is subjective – why are two tilts fairer than three? Now, let’s say a TO decides that “you are allowed to do 5 tilts and then you have to do a throw”. Here is what I would do if I played with this rule set: Grab, pummel, down-throw, dair, regrab, pummel, blizzard, jab+pummel, tilt+pummel x 5, f-throw, smash. That’s around 60% just like that, which is enough to get a KO in a lot of situations. Now, if I get the grab at very low % so that I can’t get the KO right away then I can go for a hand off reset*, do it all again and get the KO anyway. All this will still be legal. However, if I did this I would most likely still be claimed as a cheater by my opponent, which leads us to the last main problem.
*You can do a hand off even though you are not standing close to an edge. If Nana grabs a player mid-stage, she will throw in a random direction. It's only possible to get a regrab with Popo if she does a f-throw or a d-throw, which only happens 50% of the time. Example 1, example 2
People still don’t understand Ice Climbers well enough
Very specific rules like the one just mentioned will not be practical in a tournament setting because most people (that being pretty much everyone who doesn’t main ICs) will not be able to see whether the infinite is legal or not. If I did stuff like what I’ve just mentioned to get a KO off a grab at 0% (which would only happen 50% of the time at best with the hand off reset) then I’m pretty sure my opponent would say that I’m breaking the rules even though I didn’t. Then my opponent would probably call the TO who wouldn’t be able to decide anything because he didn’t see what happened and all hell breaks loose. Much too often I watch a tournament match with ICs where the commentators say stuff that isn’t true about the ICs, which annoys me a little. Stuff like “he could have saved Nana” when the ICs couldn’t, “he messed up his chain grab/hand off/wobbling” while the ICs player didn’t, “he should just have wobbled him there” where the ICs player would not be able to. This isn’t really the commentators’ fault, but it clearly shows that people generally lack knowledge about ICs. Try comparing Wobbles’ commentary to anyone else’s when there’s ICs on the screen.
I really dislike wobbling myself and I’d wish it wasn’t in the game. However, it is and it isn’t game breaking because ICs isn’t overpowered in any way, with or without wobbling. If wobbling is OP then we should ban ICs, but luckily it isn’t. I do believe it would have been better for the game as a whole if it didn’t exist, though. “Then why do you use it?” Well, because I’m playing a bad’ish character and I want to win.
While it, on paper, should be possible to make a reasonable definition of what you're (not) allowed to do when you get a grab with ICs, the real problem is to get this to work in an actual tournament match. People who are not that familiar with ICs might not be able to see the difference between "clean" wobbling (infinite), "unclean" wobbling (pummel combos that are escape-able even though they might look like true infinities, e.g. untight combinations of pummel+f-tilt), and grab resets (e.g. down-throw-dair to regrab; hand-off to regrab; down-throw to regrab). For this reason people might say that I'm breaking the rules (saying that I'm doing true wobbling) while I, in fact, am not.
And before anyone points out that TOs have managed to ban wobbling simply by stating "wobbling is banned in the rule-set" without much trouble: That only worked out because the ICs player decided not to use wobbling. If an ICs player really wanted to maximize his or her chances of winning, then that player play should play to the limits of the rules. If I was only allowed to do 4 pummels before I had to do a throw then I would do what I could to do a much damage as possible before going for the throw (grab-reset) - and then, as mentioned earlier, if I managed to get the regrab and successfully pull off something like a 0% to KO, my opponent would probably say that I cheated even though I did exactly what I was allowed to do.
The only way I can think of that would make it possible to ban wobbling would be by having a judge (TO) watching every tournament match involving a ICs player who is able to use wobbling. Then this judge should, in real time, watch and decide what that is wobbling and what that is not. This will undoubtably cause a lot of controversy and disagreement (especially if the TO isn't familiar enough with ICs), but I think it's the closest we can get to a efficient ban. That is, without banning ICs.
TL;DR:
1) I'd wish wobbling and FG were not in the game because I think the game as a whole would be better without these techs.
2) From a competetive perspective there are no sufficient reasons for banning wobbling. There are, however, reasonable arguments for banning FG because of potential stalling controversies, but I think it's possible to get around these.
3) From a theoretical perspective, it is possible to define and ban wobbling. From a practical perspective, it's is very hard/impossible to ban wobbling in a way that would work out at tournaments. It's much easier to ban FG.
