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!
*laughs* Ah.. good stuff.Air tripping was put in place to promote ground combat.
Actually that's not completely true, in my tests I found that there was a small amount of randomization in calculating damages (never more than 1%, though).Actually, that's because of the stale move negation (ZOMG that was in melee too?!!)
you are an idiot.And since they removed L canceling and wave dashing. Tripping gives slower characters like Gannon and Ike a better chance. Otherwise all the fast characters could just dash dance all day without consequence giving them a slight edge. It also opens up the strategy and mind games which is the thing that separated the pro's from the n00bs anyway.
More like, why didn't he put it in as an option from the start? If you can have an item switch, random stage modifier, damage ration, and a MUSIC QUE FOR JESUS' SAKE why not have a tripping switch, or a ratio changer?Wouldn't it be Great though if Sakurai made it so after a certain number of hours of playing Brawl you could unlock a switch to turn off tripping LOL
Because then it wouldn't be as hilarious.More like, why didn't he put it in as an option from the start? If you can have an item switch, random stage modifier, damage ration, and a MUSIC QUE FOR JESUS' SAKE why not have a tripping switch, or a ratio changer?
How is it not hilarious? Seeing someone trip is laugh-out-loud fun for the whole family. And the current *****fest over tripping makes it even more hilarious.^then it wouldn't be game breaking. As "hilarious" as it is (it really isn't funny), it is still a random factor that can allow for kills that shouldn't have happened. It may not be game breaking (contrary to what I said), but it still sucks. Can anyone make a patch for it?
I don't have the interview on me at this exact moment but there waws one with Sakurai very recently in Nintendo power that covered this exact issue you describe. (Though it was in regards to Final Smashes but the logic is equally applicable). Keep in mind this isn't a 100% accurate transcription since I don't have the issue on me.@PK-owl, your reasoning is flawed. You overlook the obvious fact that the player who gained the lead did so by earning that lead. If he obtained it through yet another fluke out of player control, then yes, tripping would have the possibility to "even the score" as it were. But how can you possibly justify removing a lead that a player earned?
If that lead was undeserved, then tripping could be justifiable. But it wasn't. The leading player in the example deserved to be the leading player. The losing player deserved to be the losing player. It is COMPLETELY the losing player's responsibility to make up for their faults and regain the lead. The winner has already done everything he should to deserve winning. He's outplayed his opponent. He has rightfully earned a lead. How can you possibly justify giving the losing player a helping hand? That is what would be unfair.
"Oh, I'm sorry. Are you losing? Are you not capable, on your own, of winning this match? Let me, for no reason other than to even the score, grant you undeserved aid. Let me put you both back at an even level, despite all the effort your opponent has exerted to earn the lead he now possesses."
Thank you for replying. You seem to understand the idea, unlike Aesir.@PK-owl, your reasoning is flawed. You overlook the obvious fact that the player who gained the lead did so by earning that lead. If he obtained it through yet another fluke out of player control, then yes, tripping would have the possibility to "even the score" as it were. But how can you possibly justify removing a lead that a player earned?
If that lead was undeserved, then tripping could be justifiable. But it wasn't. The leading player in the example deserved to be the leading player. The losing player deserved to be the losing player. It is COMPLETELY the losing player's responsibility to make up for their faults and regain the lead. The winner has already done everything he should to deserve winning. He's outplayed his opponent. He has rightfully earned a lead. How can you possibly justify giving the losing player a helping hand? That is what would be unfair.
"Oh, I'm sorry. Are you losing? Are you not capable, on your own, of winning this match? Let me, for no reason other than to even the score, grant you undeserved aid. Let me put you both back at an even level, despite all the effort your opponent has exerted to earn the lead he now possesses."
The opposite scenario is just as unjustifiable. The loser is losing by the amount they deserve to be losing by. The winner is winning by the amount they deserve to be winning by. Then the loser trips, and the winner gains an even bigger lead. That's not fair. Just because the loser was losing, doesn't mean they were going to lose. They may have been able to make up the distance between them. But now, they have to make up even MORE distance between them, for no other reason than that a random game mechanic decided it was so.
The existence of both cases doesn't justify tripping, because it only balances if the matches played between every pair of players goes to infinity. At that point, the amount of times the winner was unfairly benefited should equal the times the loser was unfairly benefited, and overall, the effect of tripping balanced out. But when you take a small sample, say a single round of matches between two opponents, there is almost a guarantee that the distribution will not fall evenly. One player will be arbitrarily given more favor than the other.
Unjustifiable. Undeserved. Stupid.
Mario also can't whip out the FLUDD in Mario Galaxy.And like salaboB said, Mario doesn't run and trip in Mario Galaxy, Samus doesn't trip in Metroid prime, Link doesn't trip unless someone knocks him down, Fox never tripped on foot in assault, Sonic never trips after all the countless miles he ran in his games, Meta Knight flies so the idea of him tripping is insane. After looking at that, why would tripping make this game any more realistic or improved. I don't get Sakurai's angle in this...
You're making me believe you don't get this. I am just as incredulous that you don't think it's possible. Suppose I K.O. you first in a round, with 70% on me. Then suppose we add damage to each other at an equal rate (units damage per six seconds, let's say), and you K.O. me next, me at 100%. You're at 30%. I come down, we continue damaging each other at an equal rate, I K.O. you 70% each later. We do this until I end up winning the three stock game, I have 70% damage on me.Well.. I agree with Aesir in that you're making generalizations that simply aren't true in some cases. You seem to be pushing the situation to the extreme that maintaining a lead requires any less skill than gaining it, and I mean.. I'm a little surprised. Can you really think that's true?
If a player takes a lead by playing at his peak, and then stops playing at his peak, then 1 of 2 things will happen. Either that player continues to lead, which would indicate that even by not playing at his peak, he was still able to outplay his opponent, or that player loses the lead, indicating that he must play at his peak in order to win.
Another objection. This one is saying that, "No no, so what if he got slack at some point? Whether he did or he didn't, he gained an advantage, so there was a point at which he demonstrated he had more skill, and the opponent did not do anything to deny that."If player 1 doesn't play as well as he is able after taking a lead, and player 2 still doesn't gain any ground on player 1, then if player 1 had simply played this less-than-peak level the entire time, they should still have won, just by less of a margin.
There's nothing wrong with that. What I'm asking you to consider is if Player 1 *never* does anything to make that advantage more than 20%. It stays roughly at 20%, constantly, throughout the match - at intervals of, say, seven seconds, you check, and the advantage is circa 20%.If player 1 gets 50% ahead, then slacks off, and player 2 gains back 30% of that lead, making it only a 20% lead, and then player 1 realizes he needs to play seriously again and pushes the lead up to 80% (these numbers are clearly a little too high for a real situation, but for the example they'll do) what exactly is wrong with that?
Maybe so. But now I want to investigate why you have the intuitions you do, as I covered in the above parts of this post.In talking about the possible disadvantages to tripping, I'm speaking about a situation where the match is close enough, that player skill is close enough, that tripping can cause such an upset. It seems as though I overstate the power of tripping, I agree, but the extrapolation is a fair one, I feel, since there can be a case where player skill is so nearly-matched that a trip could mean the loss or gain of the lead.
Your second to last sentence.. pretty much proves that I am, in fact, right. If there is a possibility that such a disruption could occur solely because of a trip, which I think we agree there is. I think we agree that such a possibility does exist, yes?