Should anti-trip be a choice for tourney sets?

[Spelt]

but... he was pretty much agreeing with you.

just in an extremely condescending way.

 

[WindMajor]

Removing tripping doesn't suddenly make this game supercompetitive.

I like this post a lot.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I love the argument that "the only reason we don't get rid of tripping is because sakurai's word is gold". Haha. No. The physical confines of the game are gold. The rules given to us by the game are gold. This is kind of the gold standard of video games, really; you don't **** with the rules the game gives you unless you absolutely have to.

 

[Spelt]

Yeah except that's all as much fact as the giant rainbow 3 footed eagle flying around my room right now.

Not everybody is as willing to forget all of their carefully crafted (and equally valid) opinions just because you had a thought.

Where does it say (besides the millions of ridiculous posts on this site that prove their crazy arguments with debate theories older than the wheel) that we should absolutely abide solely by what the game gives us?
That's right, no where.

 

[Tesh]

Its really a matter of opinion on what kind of random things you don't like. Tripping will easily see more hate because its universal. Random is random and gaining a reward by chance isn't a measure of skill.

I remember a match where a top luigi was being gimped and got a misfire that killed his opponent and won him the game. Was there a 1/8 chance that he was truly the better player there? Is a GnW player that lands 1 hit more deserving than his opponent that had to land a dozen or more to take a stock?

You can talk about how there is no slippery slope, but the fact of the matter is (as previously stated by Dekar's side of the discussion), Stacksmash makes it easy to run hacks universally across an entire tournament, no matter the size or what kind of wiis are available. If you want to fix tripping, why not fix more. Balanced Brawl actually made alot of low tier characters better, made metaknight tornado less broken, FIXED PLANKING(but not scrooging sadly) and was pushed with a packaged stackcmash download. Why aren't we playing that instead?

I don't think anyone is saying tripping is a wonderful boon to our competition. But if you are campaigning for gameplay altering hacks, why not fix more?

 

[Spelt]

You say that I can call you on a slippery slope, yet you give me no reason why your argument is valid or why I shouldn't call you on it.

While I can give you one giant reason why it's ridiculous:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=302161

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

No, it's not a slippery slop fallacy.

Why are we changing the rules of the game? To make it more competitive. Why should we then not change them even further to make it even more competitive? It follows, logically, that we should be playing BBrawl.

 

[Spelt]

Yeah, it is.

You're implying that we have a goal about how competitive we want the game to end up and how we want it to get it there. Basically you're trying to superimpose your argument into other's and claim it as their own. That's never how it should work, and you know it.

 

[Ussi]

Oh oh, Tesh reminded me of bbrawl's anti-plank code. That would be so nice to have in real brawl ._. and Sakurai knew "planking" existed, he only saw one character "broken" with planking and only added a no grabbing the ledge with your upB after some ledge grabs code to him...

Why not "help" Sakurai out and extend this anti-plank code to eveeeryone.

 

[Tesh]

Funny, because if we did use that anti plank code, we would HAVE to buff alot of low tiers because of how badly they need to be patient on the ledge when recovering. Bbrawl also fixed all the RCO lag glitches that forced alot of low tiers to grab the ledge alot.

@ Spelt, what is your argument then? From what I gathered from Dekar's posts its "i feel cheated when I lose due to something random". That is why you dislike tripping right?

 

[Shockna]

I love the argument that "the only reason we don't get rid of tripping is because sakurai's word is gold". Haha. No. The physical confines of the game are gold. The rules given to us by the game are gold. This is kind of the gold standard of video games, really; you don't **** with the rules the game gives you unless you absolutely have to.

And who sets those confines of the game, if not Sakurai/Nintendo and the programmers under them? Pretty poor attempt at misdirection, honestly (Or do you think the confines of a game are simply spontaneously generated from thin air?).

What arguments are there for refusing to remove an anti-competitive element like tripping (Or even permit the option to people who want to remove unwelcome luck from their ostensibly skill-based competition)? None, outside those which include a fruitless appeal to authority ("confines of the game", etc). Or at the very least, none I've heard.

This kind of "don't unless it's totally necessary" doesn't really make a lot of sense. Most competitive games these days don't have this issue because they typically are backed by developers who give a **** about the competitive nature of their product, and patch it regularly or semi-regularly. Nintendo seems to be on the warpath to eliminate the competitive community for smash, rather than actually standing behind their product, so why should players not simply pick up the slack for Nintendos incompetence?

 

[Spelt]

@ Spelt, what is your argument then?

My argument is that there's absolutely no reason to not allow at least the option to turn tripping off if both players agree to it.

Honestly, anyone who is arguing against this is ****ing ********. People here just seek out arguments because they get some sick fascination out of outwitting others on the politics of a subjective rule list for a video game.

This community has turned competitive gaming into who can support their arguments by rewording wikipedia articles on complex terms the best and who can accuse someone of a logical fallacy first.

 

[Tesh]

Spelt forfeits. We win.

good game guys, next topic?

 

[Spelt]

It's sad because that's pretty much the reply I expected.

 

[theunabletable]

This is kind of the gold standard of video games, really; you don't **** with the rules the game gives you unless you absolutely have to.

Why?

Edit: and, please, a concise argument (for ease of reading, and ease of writing on your part, as well), that you're posting here right now, not some link to some wall of text you wrote a long time ago.

and we could all probably cool it on the hostility and condescending-ness. We can think the other people in a debate are being irrational without being an *******

 

[The Ben]

Hi, I'm not a Smash player however I am a competitive gaming enthusiast and took notice of this discussion from someone pointing out how odd Smash rules are and then just clicking through threads so my opinion might be slightly misguided.

From my experience with other games the theory we operated on wasn't minimizing chance but rather learning how to adapt and mitigate it. Competition isn't about rewriting rules, its about learning how to best compete within the rules given to you. Sometimes rules include luck, but that means luck is part of the game. Hacking the game and removing the parts you don't like isn't making the game more competitive, its side stepping the game and playing something different.

 

[WindMajor]

You hit the nail RIGHT on the nail, Ben.

 

[The Ben]

An example that was brought up earlier in the thread was it being like advertising a Smash Brothers Brawl tournament just to have Mario Party or Hide And Seek taking up parts of the tournament, and while the principle is kinda accurate its not exactly like that. I think a fair comparison would be like advertising a Street Fighter 3: Third Strike tournament except some of the games are on cabinets with slightly different dip switch settings. It is technically the same game, but when the juggle system and damage dampeners change between rounds you'd certainly have to question exactly what the tournament is supposed to be a test of.

 

[WindMajor]

Mhm, the examples I used were exaggerated, but my point still remained. Two different games, two different balances, focus in certain skills being tested shift, lack of consistency between sets, which is unfair to others in a sense.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm just going to throw this question out: if we accept that gameplay-altering hacks are legitimate, why shouldn't we, for example, make it so that you cannot rudder camp on Pirate Ship (easy to do), remove the bombs (IIRC it's been done before), and in doing so make it a completely legitimate counterpick? Why shouldn't we remove the ghosts on YI(B), a random element that has been widely complained about and that may well have cost people sets by robbing earned gimps? Why shouldn't we make brinstar's structure less prone to sharking (by making it so that you can't go through the bottom), turning it from an "OMGBROKENZ" stage for MK into simply a strong counterpick against characters who rely on flat ground? Why shouldn't we buff Ganon's fair (the way it was originally intended) to give him at least one viable move? Why shouldn't we give PTAD ledges and nerf the cars (already been done for other hacks)?

In short, why shouldn't we do any number of things that would highten the game competitively, remove randomness, make more stages viable, make more characters viable, and generally make brawl a better game? I'm not even saying we would logically have to; I'm saying what's stopping us and why is tripping any different?

 

[Akaku94]

I love the new guy... and you have it exactly right. We can't just change the dynamics of the game because we think it's more competetive; once we do that, we're changing the game to something else.

Dealing with randomness is part of Brawl.

EDIT: just saw BPC's post. Excellent point.

 

[Shockna]

I'm just going to throw this question out: if we accept that gameplay-altering hacks are legitimate, why shouldn't we, for example, make it so that you cannot rudder camp on Pirate Ship (easy to do), remove the bombs (IIRC it's been done before), and in doing so make it a completely legitimate counterpick? Why shouldn't we remove the ghosts on YI(B), a random element that has been widely complained about and that may well have cost people sets by robbing earned gimps? Why shouldn't we make brinstar's structure less prone to sharking (by making it so that you can't go through the bottom), turning it from an "OMGBROKENZ" stage for MK into simply a strong counterpick against characters who rely on flat ground? Why shouldn't we buff Ganon's fair (the way it was originally intended) to give him at least one viable move? Why shouldn't we give PTAD ledges and nerf the cars (already been done for other hacks)?

In short, why shouldn't we do any number of things that would highten the game competitively, remove randomness, make more stages viable, make more characters viable, and generally make brawl a better game? I'm not even saying we would logically have to; I'm saying what's stopping us and why is tripping any different?

Indeed, why not?

All of that seems like a completely reasonable laundry list of changes. You know... The kind that a company that cared about its product would patch in?

From my experience with other games the theory we operated on wasn't minimizing chance but rather learning how to adapt and mitigate it. Competition isn't about rewriting rules, its about learning how to best compete within the rules given to you. Sometimes rules include luck, but that means luck is part of the game. Hacking the game and removing the parts you don't like isn't making the game more competitive, its side stepping the game and playing something different.

With tripping though, it's impossible to mitigate that chance without just not dashing (Hardly a choice for some characters). Sure, Brawl is competitive with the extremely large elements of luck involved. But it'd be much moreso without the inclusion of elements like tripping. Tripping would be fine if it had a defined and known algorithm that we understood beyond "it might happen whenever you dash" (I.e. you trip every 10th dash on the dot). But having it as a completely random element dilutes the competitive

Under this "take a four-leaf clover to every match and call it 'adapting'" philosophy, when a company releases a patch that alters balance and removes luck elements or changes existing game properties, they're changing what game everyone is playing? Or is that only true when actual players do the same thing via different means? If so, why the arbitrary change?

 

[The Ben]

With tripping though, it's impossible to mitigate that chance without just not dashing (Hardly a choice for some characters). Sure, Brawl is competitive with the extremely large elements of luck involved. But it'd be much moreso without the inclusion of elements like tripping. Tripping would be fine if it had a defined and known algorithm that we understood beyond "it might happen whenever you dash" (I.e. you trip every 10th dash on the dot). But having it as a completely random element dilutes the competitive

Under this "take a four-leaf clover to every match and call it 'adapting'" philosophy, when a company releases a patch that alters balance and removes luck elements or changes existing game properties, they're changing what game everyone is playing? Or is that only true when actual players do the same thing via different means? If so, why the arbitrary change?

Not understanding the algorithm doesn't make it not exist. Not knowing why something works or how often its triggered isn't a reason to remove it. Is competition diluted by random events in a game that is inherently random? I don't think so, I think that's just the way the game was designed. If something is intended to have random elements, and does, that thing succeeds at what it sets out to do. Using a non-video game example, is poker not competitive because the game is designed with a lot of random factors or do competitive poker players learn how to capitalize on the misfortune of others? It may be to the detriment of some characters, but balance in any game where you choose characters (or anything really) is relative to the options your selections have within the rules of said game and to expect the game to not favor some characters sometimes is unrealistic.

The difference between a fan releasing a patch and a company releasing a patch is that the company is the officiator of the game's design. The fan is not, and depending on the ToS agreed to upon purchase may actually be breaking the law. With that said, I don't care if someone has some kind of homebrew Smash haxx tournament as long as they're upfront about it and don't try to pass it off as Smash proper.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Just ftr, I fully support no tripping.

However, if we're changing even that, we should be going further and rebalancing the game to improve it competitively.

That's basically all I have to say on this point.

 

[WindMajor]

And you're absolutely right. Once you take something from Pandora's box, there's no reason to stop taking things without causing a mess of double standards.

 

[The Ben]

Smash Bros is the new M.U.G.E.N..

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Precisely.

I mean, I ****ing hate tripping. I have lost games because of a trip completely destroying my momentum last stock.

But I also ****ing hate MK.
And Falco/Icies/D3/Pika/etc CGs.
Sheik's tilt lock
Ganondorf sucking
Yoshi not being able to jump OoS
Diddy's Down-B

I could go on and on with things I hate as much as or more than random tripping in this game.

 

[The Ben]

Assuming people could just rebalance characters all willy-nilly wouldn't it just lead to arguments over who has the best balance and divide the community? Once you start balancing and rebalancing it creates this problem of perpetual balancing in an effort to make everyone happy.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Which is why if such an endeavour were taking place you'd appoint a set, unchanging group of people to do it. And once those people are decided, if you don't like what they're doing, that's too bad, you're the one who decided they should do it, you have to live with what they decide.

Not that this'll ever happen, lol. Though BBrawl does a damn fine job of rebalancing. It only really has issues with some characters who originally had mostly even MU spreads gaining a couple of bad MUs, like Pit, Diddy, and Pikachu.

 

[John12346]

You all do realize that "No Tripping" requires only one SD Card, while gameplay balancing hacks that require the retooling of characters' movesets requires an individual SD Card for each Wii, right?

They are on completely different levels of enforceability.

And for those of you who are unaware of my stance on this matter: I don't really care what the end result is, although I feel it would be better to leave the 1337 hax alone. Being as objective as possible like I usually do.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Actually there are a number of fixes that can be made with codes alone.

A code that allows nontumble DI fixes most CGs and Sheik's tilt lock. <= unfortunately I'm pretty sure we'll never have access to this one, it's part of Project M, and they seem intent on nobody ever using their codes for anything other than Project M, ever.
BBrawl's anti-planking code is a code. durr
A code that fixes the teching window.
RCO lag.

I could go on.

We could fix a great deal of issues with codes alone.

 

[John12346]

Valid reasoning. I actually had forgotten about codes that fix gameplay outside of retooling movesets, my bad

With that said, I wonder how Brawl with Melee hitstun would play out...

*goes back to watching*

 

[The Ben]

We could fix a great deal of issues with codes alone.

So really you want a game with rules that are entirely different from Brawl's. Why not go play a game that isn't Brawl than?

 

[Spelt]

ITT: People repeating arguments that have already been disproven.

Oh smashboards...



This ben guy is probably an alt btw.
nobody would make an account here just to argue about a topic for a videogame they have no interest in.
You guys are ridiculous.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

Brawl and Melee actually have the same hitstun value of 0.40.

Brawl just allows you to cancel hitstun after a set number of frames with an airdodge, double jump, attack, then special.

I'm actually going to work on putting together this "fixed" version of Brawl now, just as an exercise.


Actually I'ma switch the main focus of my project thread over in Brawl workshop to this.

 

[John12346]

Well, that's what I meant to say, I'm aware hitstun is the same in both games

/offtopic

Brawl with no tripping, the disability to cancel hitstun, BBrawl's anti planking code and anti swim code, removed dead frame on jumping, fixed tech window and fixed RCO lag glitch would probably make the game infinitely better, but is it the right thing to do? Are we really playing the same game anymore? What is the best move to make???

Well, like I said, I'd be fine with either outcome.

 

[The Ben]

This ben guy is probably an alt btw.

Maybe. I might be your alt.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

I'm liking the direction this thread is heading a lot.

We aren't playing the same game anymore.

We're playing something debatably better.

But the issue becomes what exactly constitutes something "wrong" with the game. Is cancel out of hitstun in the same boat as RCO lag and the tech window?

I mean, with other things, the issue is that the correct coding exists in the game, and they simply disabled it. This includes double stick DI, the tech window, etc.

But cancel out of hitstun isn't a matter of ignored code. It's coding that was added on top of existing coding. It doesn't ignore the original coding, it simply adds to it.



*EDIT* Preliminary build of "fixed" brawl will be up for people to experiment with in about 5 minutes, I'll edit with link to the thread.

Couldn't find a code for nontumble DI as I suspected, but I did put together a bunch of other ones.

Still needs quite a bit of work, but it should suffice as something to try out.

Spoiler

30/08/2011 Created codelist
Added:
Disable Custom Stages 1.1
No Tripping
RCO Lag Fix
Default Settings
BBrawl Omnibus
Infinite Replays
Tags in Replays
No Cancel Out of Hitstun
No C-Stick Fastfall
Remove Dead Frame on Jumps
DI All Trajectories

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?7s7ba93j5iabixp

 

[John12346]

Well, the ability to cancel hitstun may not be a mis-code or anything, but keep in mind, neither is tripping. If people are advocating to remove tripping, then removing hitstun cancelling should be a legit move, as well...

Also that codelist looks tight. Brawl would be really epic if it ran all of that on its engine

 

[Supreme Dirt]

I'm also currently trying to get a hold of the nontumble DI code, if I can't I'll have to look into moveset modification through codes to slightly increase the KB of those moves to just above the tumble threshold without noticably changing the moves.

Should be fun.