Important Diddy Grab Immunity Glitch 1.1.1

[wizrad]

Why is everyone talking about "playing around it"? We could "play around" PAC-LAND's ridiculousness, too, but we don't because the game then becomes less about competition and more about suriving the stage. We banned Wuhu Island because of a glitch (although too many seem to think it was because the stage is non-competitive), we can ban Diddy for two weeks to wait for a patch. If there's no patch in two weeks, we have to deal with it.

 

[GeneralBrwni]

So you're just a fear mongering theorycrafter, good to know.

Thanks for the fair assessment, stop acting like you know everything.
What, am I not allowed to say how I think this might affect the game, or do you just dismiss any argument against diddy, which, I didn't EVEN say he should be banned, I was just stating that this could affect the game more than you dismissed it as. It isn't nothing, and you're acting like it is. Anything above the threshold of "nothing" is not "fear mongering" and you don't need to go around attacking people who don't agree with your exact perspective.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Why is everyone talking about "playing around it"? We could "play around" PAC-LAND's ridiculousness, too, but we don't because the game then becomes less about competition and more about suriving the stage. We banned Wuhu Island because of a glitch (although too many seem to think it was because the stage is non-competitive), we can ban Diddy for two weeks to wait for a patch. If there's no patch in two weeks, we have to deal with it.

There's nothing non-competitive about dealing with glitches. The main reason to ban Pac-Land is because it's a very polarizing stage (offers severe advantages to some characters versus others). Banning Wuhu Island for an obscure glitch that was patched out several patches ago was never rational; it's a solid stage that was just never given a chance in most regions (to be fully honest, I think the main reason Skyloft and Wuhu Island were banning in most regions is because a lot of players decided they just didn't want to learn new transforming stages regardless of merit). We also don't have players who main Pac-Land whereas we have a lot of players who main Diddy.

To be real though, I wouldn't mind playing on Pac-Land in a tournament. It would give me a chance to try something new and explore more of the game. I'm pretty sure the stage is pretty bad, but it's not really that big of a deal to play on a bad stage since you can just play well to take advantage of it. I'd much rather attend a tournament with Pac-Land legal than Diddy banned; that's for sure.

 

[Ghostbone]

Thanks for the fair assessment, stop acting like you know everything.
What, am I not allowed to say how I think this might affect the game, or do you just dismiss any argument against diddy, which, I didn't EVEN say he should be banned, I was just stating that this could affect the game more than you dismissed it as. It isn't nothing, and you're acting like it is. Anything above the threshold of "nothing" is not "fear mongering" and you don't need to go around attacking people who don't agree with your exact perspective.

I did reread your post and I overreacted and I apologise, it happens when I'm dealing with other people with ridiculous positions like banning an entire character over nothing.

But it does get on my nerves when people keep theorycrafting how they think it will affect games and how broken it is without actually just playing the game and finding out lmao.

 

[Stromp]

Or just don't be a scrub and ban people's characters because you can't be bothered dealing with them.

It's a glitch so why shouldn't he be temp banned?

 

[20LC]

Glitches shouldn't be inherently banned.

 

[Stromp]

Glitches shouldn't be inherently banned.

I agree if he is allowed then everyone should just deal with the glitch. I don't believe he should be allowed

 

[wizrad]

Glitches aren't inherently banworthy, but when has a glitch not been banned? I can't think of one.

 

[SwordM13X24]

Glitches aren't inherently banworthy, but when has a glitch not been banned? I can't think of one.

First thin' that comes into my mind is Brawl Meta Knight's Infinite Dimensional Cape. Now whether ya call it a glitch or exploit is where the grey area shows.
I could also "argue" that wavedashin' is a glitch and does it make that banworthy? Of course not.
What should determine if some glitch/exploit is to be ban'd is whether or not it disrupts "normal" gameplay.
And that's another issue on top of this... the definition of a "normal gameplay".

 

[Mario766]

So Smash servers are down for maint.

DIDDY FIX?

 

[Shaya]

Amazing Ampharos
I'm a lot more inclined to take away the character angle out of "doing your best" these days, that's just my perspective. We're competing at an extremely skewed corner of Smash possibilities and the player on the day shouldn't blame their lack of character choice on their weakened ability to compete with success.
Ideological differences at it's core. My region has a "close" top layer of players who get similar results at every event with mixed characters (as in, still above those a level below), similar things are seen in regions in which I have personal contact with. I promote player independence from characters, especially in a game where the balance of the cast are close and skill floors for most of the cast are stable and mostly overlap.

Why? Because we have balance patches, things change. When something changes with no intent or logic, I consider it off the mark from what players are having to deal with between patches as it is. Diddy could've been practically deleted by making all his damage values 1%. I prefer thinking the responsibility for adapting is onto the Diddy player to do something different for a tournament or two, not the rest of the scene.
Now inb4 this is reversed on me to prove their point, but be wary that's exactly the difference in ideology.

First thin' that comes into my mind is Brawl Meta Knight's Infinite Dimensional Cape. Now whether ya call it a glitch or exploit is where the grey area shows.

It was definitely banned... almost instantly. It was an issue because it was hard to tell if people abused it "secretly" in the moment, but in hindsight player's have been caught out abusing it.

 

[TMNTSSB4]

So Smash servers are down for maint.

DIDDY FIX?

Or his glitch will last awhile longer, like Pacman's glitches did.

Edit: How did my comment get moved to a different thread?

 

[Mario766]

Or his glitch will last awhile longer, like Pacman's glitches did.

Edit: How did my comment get moved to a different thread?

Because mine did as well.

 

[JesterJaded]

Or his glitch will last awhile longer, like Pacman's glitches did.

Edit: How did my comment get moved to a different thread?

Because the mods are trying to quarantine everything related to the Diddy glitch.

Title should be changed to "Hoo-Nah Epidemic Quarantine Thread" all in favor say aye

 

[TMNTSSB4]

Because the mods are trying to quarantine everything related to the Diddy glitch.

Title should be changed to "Hoo-Nah Epidemic Quarantine Thread" all in favor say aye

Ah

 

[Shaya]

It shouldn't need to be taking up other threads which are focused on "bigger" things.
Is it so hard to expect? We do have an entire forum >_>

 

[Ghostbone]

Glitches aren't inherently banworthy, but when has a glitch not been banned? I can't think of one.

What glitches have been banned in smash before?
Currently I can only think of ICs freeze glitch from melee (and mewtwo's soul stunner that requires items lmao)
And both of these actually prevent gameplay from continuing and are initiated by one player. Games continue fine if diddy can't be grabbed till he shields an attack and the glitch is initiated by both players.

There having been incredible numbers of pacman glitches in this game that were never banned lmao, and greninja's shadow sneak is still glitched afaik.

 

[JesterJaded]

How about this: allow Diddy, but on the off-chance that the glitch was activated and Diddy was supposed to be grabbed but wasn't due to the glitch, then the Diddy player is disqualified? I believe if this glitch truly has any legitimate claims on its game-breaking nature, then the evidence will show itself in competitive play. Anyone will agree that in the situation where a shield is immune to grabs, it is an unfair advantage, but as has been stated it's easy enough to cancel the glitch out. Let those who know it isn't as big of a deal take their chances, and if it turns out they're wrong and Diddies get disqualified, they'll only have themselves to blame for taking the risk. For those Diddy players who won't play on the off-chance the glitch occurs and they get grabbed, it is no different than if Diddy were banned for them, and they're indirectly agreeing with that decision to ban Diddy because the glitch would be a legitimate concern in their eyes.

 

[Mario766]

That won't work. The glitch is way too easily activated for it to be basis for an immediate DQ.

There's videos of Ike jab comboing Diddy after a shield drop -> Activated
Ike shield poke Diddy with Aether? -> Activation

It's way too easily activated.

 

[wizrad]

Are the servers still down? Did we get another patch? ONE WITH SHEIK NEEDLE/VANISH NERFS??

 

[Luigi player]

Sure, there are ways to play around it, but if you're trying to play around not having a grab when you should, you're still at a disadvantage for no reason, at least compared to the position you'd be in if you could use your grab. Diddy can play around whatever he thinks you're gonna do, too, if he knows you're probably trying to bait out shield and he has no respect for your grab game. Heck, even if he does shield, why does he get a nearly risk-free shield every time this glitch happens? Even if the glitch doesn't make your opponent win certain exchanges, the glitch can still mess you up. What if you have the opportunity to get a lot of damage or even a stock off of a grab but the glitch is active and you have to waste the opportunity getting a few hits off, or just hitting their shield, instead?

... if you have to play without a grab, Diddy has to play without a shield.
Grabs exist to beat shields. If he doesn't shield you don't need to grab. Generally, never being able to shield is worse than not having a grab in a no grab vs no shield scenario, tbh.

 

[wizrad]

But Diddy can shield. He just loses his grab armor if he does. Being ungrabbable is a huge advantage. Luigi, Brawler, Doc, G&W, and more lose their combo starters. And why are we saying "grabs only exist to beat shield"? Ever heard of a "grab punish"?

 

[JesterJaded]

That won't work. The glitch is way too easily activated for it to be basis for an immediate DQ.

There's videos of Ike jab comboing Diddy after a shield drop -> Activated
Ike shield poke Diddy with Aether? -> Activation

It's way too easily activated.

I'm not talking about DQ upon activation, I'm talking about DQ upon a failed grab that by the fundamental rules of the game shouldn't have failed. There's a huge difference considering that the glitch is just as easily deactivated as it is activated, if not more so.

... if you have to play without a grab, Diddy has to play without a shield.
Grabs exist to beat shields. If he doesn't shield you don't need to grab. Generally, never being able to shield is worse than not having a grab in a no grab vs no shield scenario, tbh.

The issue with this is that Diddy doesn't have to play without a shield at all once the glitch is activated (in a setting where he won't be DQ'd), Diddy can be played as if the glitch doesn't exist while the opponent loses the option to grab until he hits his opponent's shield.

 

[Luigi player]

The issue with this is that Diddy doesn't have to play without a shield at all once the glitch is activated (in a setting where he won't be DQ'd), Diddy can be played as if the glitch doesn't exist while the opponent loses the option to grab until he hits his opponent's shield.

Just attack his shield then before trying to grab if you assume the glitch activated, or if you missed a grab because of it.
I'm not saying it isn't stupid. But outright banning a character is a pretty big deal. Much bigger than having a glitch that brings a few changes to the match.

Also the Diddy has no control in deactivating the glitch. In your scenario, where you want to DQ the Diddy, his opponent could just go for grabs only if he assumes it activated to get a free win. That would be ridiculously unfair to the Diddy player.

 

[JesterJaded]

Just attack his shield then before trying to grab if you assume the glitch activated, or if you missed a grab because of it.
I'm not saying it isn't stupid. But outright banning a character is a pretty big deal. Much bigger than having a glitch that brings a few changes to the match.

Also the Diddy has no control in deactivating the glitch. In your scenario, where you want to DQ the Diddy, his opponent could just go for grabs only if he assumes it activated to get a free win. That would be ridiculously unfair to the Diddy player.

There's going to be some disadvantage in this situation for either player, it's inevitable. You can either have the Diddy Players not be DQ'd and they get to play their character without a hitch, while their opponents have to carefully keep on mind which attacks they use or else they'll get hard punished for missing a grab they shouldn't have missed, or you can have the disadvantage in Diddy's favor wherein they must make sure to shield all multihitboxes, and should the glitch be activated, avoid getting grabbed until they see an opportunity to power shield a move. Considering "don't get grabbed" has been the meta for ages, this isn't too much of a transition and seems fairer than the alternative, especially since it is the Diddy player that is introducing the glitch to the match.

Also, going for grabs only is just as dangerous as not shielding, especially in a more aggressive meta. Similar to how Diddy will eventually have to shield, you would eventually have to throw out attacks arguably more often in comparison, and therein lies Diddy's opportunity to cancel the glitch by shielding your attacks.

 

[wizrad]

Changing everyone's game plan because of a glitch that breaks a common mechanic is ridiculous. Is there any way to revert by a patch? We should play 1.1.0 until this is fixed.

 

[JesterJaded]

Changing everyone's game plan because of a glitch that breaks a common mechanic is ridiculous. Is there any way to revert by a patch? We should play 1.1.0 until this is fixed.

Honestly? This right here is the best approach, if possible.

 

[ぱみゅ]

The thing is, banning Diddy "until it's fixed" would make Diddy mains to fall behind the meta, while reverting to 1.1.0 would make the whole meta to fall behind.

"Banning for now, but if it doesn't get fixed soon enough we'll have to deal with it" sounds reasonable.


Also, I can't talk for Melee, but Brawl had tons of glitches that never got banned, like Marth's Stun Jacket, Nana floating below the ledge, and even grabbing Snake/GW/Sonic out of their Up-Specials was found to be a glitch.

 

[Amazing Ampharos]

Amazing Ampharos
I'm a lot more inclined to take away the character angle out of "doing your best" these days, that's just my perspective. We're competing at an extremely skewed corner of Smash possibilities and the player on the day shouldn't blame their lack of character choice on their weakened ability to compete with success.
Ideological differences at it's core. My region has a "close" top layer of players who get similar results at every event with mixed characters (as in, still above those a level below), similar things are seen in regions in which I have personal contact with. I promote player independence from characters, especially in a game where the balance of the cast are close and skill floors for most of the cast are stable and mostly overlap.

Why? Because we have balance patches, things change. When something changes with no intent or logic, I consider it off the mark from what players are having to deal with between patches as it is. Diddy could've been practically deleted by making all his damage values 1%. I prefer thinking the responsibility for adapting is onto the Diddy player to do something different for a tournament or two, not the rest of the scene.
Now inb4 this is reversed on me to prove their point, but be wary that's exactly the difference in ideology.




It was definitely banned... almost instantly. It was an issue because it was hard to tell if people abused it "secretly" in the moment, but in hindsight player's have been caught out abusing it.

I already know from personal experience how not using my character goes. If I'm not using Rosalina, I'm basically a "tier lower" as a player. I'm still not going to lose to players way worse than me sure, but the players who were at or close to my level become matches I'm pretty unlikely to win because half of what I know in terms of practical gameplay just doesn't exist in a world where I don't have a Luma even if I wait for 12.5 seconds. It would be easy to say that Diddy is an "easier" character than Rosalina and be less sympathetic, but when I actually think about what Diddy offers as a character, it's pretty obvious to me he's really unique compared to everyone else. His banana peel is just really different from everything else in the game, jumping forward with a grab (Monkey Flip) is completely unique to him, and among the speed characters, no others have even close to his limb reach which is a really compelling dynamic that permeates every neutral interaction. There are many characters of similar quality to Diddy, but no characters actually have similar gameplay dynamics to Diddy at all.

If anything, the nature of patches makes me even more sympathetic to the Diddy mains. Their character has been nerfed heavily over the course of patches; clearly they only still play him because they find what he offers as a character *really* compelling versus what everyone else has, and those Diddy mains who didn't jump ship to Sheik after his nerfs are precisely the type of players who would be hurt most by a character ban. Sure in theory Nintendo could have just nerfed Diddy into being useless to create a similar situation to a community ban, but Nintendo would never do that (in 11 patches so far, they have never nerfed any good character into being "not good"; they're ridiculously conservative). Even if Nintendo took that unprecedented move, it would be swift and certain. The Diddy mains would know instantly that their character is now horrible and that they need to switch mains. It would be impersonal too; Nintendo's balance team for this is basically faceless and cannot be compromised with. A community ban subjects it to politics and uncertainty, and when the very much not faceless members of the community tell those Diddy mains that the rule decision was harshly against them, it is very much personal.

Of course, there's ideological differences, but when you don't ban things, everyone can pick what they think is best whereas when you do only those who agree with mainstream opinion can pick their preferred game elements. It seems clearly lopsided to ban stuff versus not ban stuff for that reason; whenever something is not banned, everyone is still free to pick other things in the game, but if it's banned, then everyone who would pick it is forbidden from doing so. It seems clearly the most inclusive to allow everyone to do whatever they want and just let the game itself decide winners and losers, and if we act from the premise that there will always be different ideologies, the environment that lets the maximum number of people do what they want to do only seems rational to me. I suppose valuing diversity is an ideology itself, but it's the one that in the long run includes the most people so I feel confident in backing it.

 

[wizrad]

The thing is, banning Diddy "until it's fixed" would make Diddy mains to fall behind the meta, while reverting to 1.1.0 would make the whole meta to fall behind.

As a Mii main, sorry, but they're going to have to get over it. My character is potentially permanently banned for no reason, yours is temporarily banned for a good reason.

 

[webbedspace]

Emergency patch announced. Let's breathe a sigh of relief.

 

[Ghostbone]

I really hope next time something like this happens the community's response isn't an instant BANNED.

 

[ぱみゅ]

Barrage Attack? I sometimes am amazed by "official" names of certain aspects. Like Shield Shuffling

Anyway, nice to see the hotfix there.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

Said it would be quick

 

[John12346]

Barrage Attack? I sometimes am amazed by "official" names of certain aspects. Like Shield Shuffling

I'm pretty sure that whatever translated to "Barrage Attack" actually says "Flurry Attack." The American in-game tips refer to rapid jabs with that term (You see it when they're explaining Robin's limits on Elwind, and Meta Knight, who doesn't do "Standard" attacks).

 

[Gamesfreak13563]

I wonder what actually causes the glitch. What prevents a character from being grabbed in general?

 

[Snackss]

I really hope next time something like this happens the community's response isn't an instant BANNED.

Huh? This is a game-breaking bug, not a balance issue.

 

[Raijinken]

連打攻撃 (renda) translates rather directly to barrage attack. NoA just comes up with weirder terms for things.

Almost wish this wasn't being patched so we could see more rage over a justified ban.

 

[Mario766]

How about we don't take Google Translate too seriously.

It's a Machine Translation.

 

[Raijinken]

How about we don't take Google Translate too seriously.

It's a Machine Translation.

How about someone who knows Japanese? Can we take them seriously?
Renda kougeki is a compound noun that means barrage attack. Barrage has a lot of synonyms in English. Particularly when referring to a large number of quick punches, kicks, or slashes, "flurry" is one of them.

Wait... why are we even discussing this?

I already know from personal experience how not using my character goes. If I'm not using Rosalina, I'm basically a "tier lower" as a player. I'm still not going to lose to players way worse than me sure, but the players who were at or close to my level become matches I'm pretty unlikely to win because half of what I know in terms of practical gameplay just doesn't exist in a world where I don't have a Luma even if I wait for 12.5 seconds. It would be easy to say that Diddy is an "easier" character than Rosalina and be less sympathetic, but when I actually think about what Diddy offers as a character, it's pretty obvious to me he's really unique compared to everyone else. His banana peel is just really different from everything else in the game, jumping forward with a grab (Monkey Flip) is completely unique to him, and among the speed characters, no others have even close to his limb reach which is a really compelling dynamic that permeates every neutral interaction. There are many characters of similar quality to Diddy, but no characters actually have similar gameplay dynamics to Diddy at all.

If anything, the nature of patches makes me even more sympathetic to the Diddy mains. Their character has been nerfed heavily over the course of patches; clearly they only still play him because they find what he offers as a character *really* compelling versus what everyone else has, and those Diddy mains who didn't jump ship to Sheik after his nerfs are precisely the type of players who would be hurt most by a character ban. Sure in theory Nintendo could have just nerfed Diddy into being useless to create a similar situation to a community ban, but Nintendo would never do that (in 11 patches so far, they have never nerfed any good character into being "not good"; they're ridiculously conservative). Even if Nintendo took that unprecedented move, it would be swift and certain. The Diddy mains would know instantly that their character is now horrible and that they need to switch mains. It would be impersonal too; Nintendo's balance team for this is basically faceless and cannot be compromised with. A community ban subjects it to politics and uncertainty, and when the very much not faceless members of the community tell those Diddy mains that the rule decision was harshly against them, it is very much personal.

Of course, there's ideological differences, but when you don't ban things, everyone can pick what they think is best whereas when you do only those who agree with mainstream opinion can pick their preferred game elements. It seems clearly lopsided to ban stuff versus not ban stuff for that reason; whenever something is not banned, everyone is still free to pick other things in the game, but if it's banned, then everyone who would pick it is forbidden from doing so. It seems clearly the most inclusive to allow everyone to do whatever they want and just let the game itself decide winners and losers, and if we act from the premise that there will always be different ideologies, the environment that lets the maximum number of people do what they want to do only seems rational to me. I suppose valuing diversity is an ideology itself, but it's the one that in the long run includes the most people so I feel confident in backing it.

As if you needed to remind me why you're one of my favorite people in this community.