Like I said before, I really don't have any knowledge in programming. Because of that I really can't say either way if this platform is valid. However, even if his claim about the phantom platform is wrong, he may be on the right track with tapping the joystick on frame one of the jump. We really don't know what causes air tripping, so all I am suggesting is rather than targeting the weaknesses of a theory, we should try and investigate the possible positive elements of it. I understand that this would still mean Lucas would have a larger number of claims, but like someone said before, maybe the PK fire interferes with the trip.
But why selectively ignore examples that poke glaring holes in the very foundation of a theory? Yuna air tripped twice simply moving while floating. He definitely didn't smash the control stick at the same time as a mid-air jump. So to account for this, you have to extend the definition of our phantom platform. We have to say that during a float, the phantom platform exists for several frames, and moves with Peach, rather than existing for only 1 frame. Peach, therefore, must be "walking" on this platform, I guess? And when you "walk" on a phantom platform, the game displays a unique floating animation.
So now we've got a phantom platform when Peach initiates a full second jump, and another one that appears and stays for a bit once she's reached the peak of that second jump. We've got phantom platforms all over the place, and no evidence to support that floating
isn't completely and totally unique from other on-ground movement. It's a "walk" that allows you to do aerials out of it, instead of ground attacks like a normal walk. But we can ignore that and say, instead, that floating is just like walking on a phantom platform. That the game must interpret it as such, despite all of the obvious differences between floating and walking?
So Yuna must've tripped while initiating a dash on the phantom platform. The floating platform must equalize all horizontal "walking" to one speed--it won't let you float-dash. So our phantom platform lets you walk on it, if you're Peach, but if you try to dash, it is aware of the fact that you attempted to dash, but it will not allow you to dash, it will just move forward at "walk" speed, and it will change the walk animation into a floating animation, and also when you try to perform moves on it, you'll do aerials instead of ground moves. Not to mention the fact that no one else can touch this phantom platform while it exists.
Do you see my point? There are
so many contingencies you have to basically make up as you go along to try to rectify this theory with the facts we have to go on. This "phantom platform" must be the weirdest thing ever programmed, to have all these ridiculous peculiarities when Peach floats. We can't just ignore Peach because it's convenient to our theory to do so. We have to assume that every apparently-valid testimonial IS valid, and come up with a theory that encapsulates all of them, not some of them.
If a somewhat plausible theory were to arise, I'd be just as behind it as you, Hitaku, but this is
not a plausible theory. There are far more than a handful of assumptions you have to accept in order to even
begin rectifying this theory with actual fact. You have to tweak it to fit reality. A good theory shouldn't have to be bent so many different ways to fit what it's trying to describe.
I don't hate theories or anything, I just don't like
ignoring facts. We cannot make theories based on selective listening. I'd have no problem with saying that through a glitch, the game occasionally
accidentally interprets aerial movement as ground movement, allowing it to cause a trip in the air, and the tumble animation is how it chooses to rectify the situation until your character reaches the ground. This theory is just as unfounded as any other one we might make now, but it at least makes some sense. It attempts to explain the irregularity of air trips in a much more believable way. To claim that
every aerial movement is logically equivalent to ground movement on a "phantom platform," except that you first have to accept this bucketful of contingencies involving how actions are interpreted on this platform, and then simple
SAY that there doesn't exist a discrepancy in the number of reported Air Trips? That, I cannot believe.