-
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!
Tripping: Is it TRULY that annoying?
- Thread starter eyestrain92
- Start date
Taymond
Smash Journeyman
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.
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).
PK-ow!
Smash Lord
I have contemplated tripping, and realized it does add something to the game. There's no single word or phrase for it, so I'll just explain.
In a game of pure skill, the mistakes decide the outcome. The match goes to whoever doesn't make his mistake first (and he will make a mistake), modulo him not making egregious errors nor completely falling to pieces.
That's the way such games go. Now notice, that once you're in an advantageous position, you don't have to do anything else amazing to stay there. In such games, earning a positional advantage, means you don't have to outplay your opponent any more, you just have to get to the end before he catches up to you.
Now put in a little bit of randomness. Fluctuations in positional advantage that neither player control and which can't be predicted. In this case, there's a bit of pressure on each player, to continue striving to play his best. Why? Because one of them could fall behind at any moment. It's like running a race, except sometimes the terrain under your feet loops back on itself. In a usual race, you can exert yourself early, then ease up. With the randomness, you are urged to continue applying your best.
The reason for tripping then is clear. Because it is random (and it meets additional criteria below), it incites more competitive play, it calls on the gamers to put in their best, every second.
Now to tie up loose ends. One, the random element can't be game breaking of itself. That, essentially, makes the luck factor inappropriately huge compared to the skill factor. Tripping is not game-ending on its own (you still have to be hit, and you have to be damaged beforehand, too).
Two, the random element must not scale inversely with the board position. This would be exemplified by, say, the blue shell in Mario Kart, which seeks the first player. This obviously punishes those who have earned their position, paradoxically rewarding suboptimal play. Tripping provides the same disadvantage no matter when it occurs: lag.
And that's it! Notice though I've abstracted away from the detail that tripping is not purely random - it only happens when you run. This allows players to interact with it, adding a dimension of expertise to gameplay, in two directions, obviously: How to capitalize on your opponent's tripping (or rather, the chance that he will do so if and when he runs), and how to rationally manage the risk of running with the rewards.
To show the depth of the latter, to know the difference between a time when running poses little benefit yet risks game loss, and times otherwise - that is, whether running will increase the chance of victory, or decrease it - and to demonstrate this knowledge consistently throughout a match, shows practice, sense, and skill.
Sorry for the bad syntax in the last paragraph. I lost my English, has anyone seen it?
Now for intellectual honesty, I can't say I got this idea through pure intellection. I'm just adapting the writing of another for our purposes. It's an online article by Noah Weil, "Errors and Judgment."
My $3.50.
In a game of pure skill, the mistakes decide the outcome. The match goes to whoever doesn't make his mistake first (and he will make a mistake), modulo him not making egregious errors nor completely falling to pieces.
That's the way such games go. Now notice, that once you're in an advantageous position, you don't have to do anything else amazing to stay there. In such games, earning a positional advantage, means you don't have to outplay your opponent any more, you just have to get to the end before he catches up to you.
Now put in a little bit of randomness. Fluctuations in positional advantage that neither player control and which can't be predicted. In this case, there's a bit of pressure on each player, to continue striving to play his best. Why? Because one of them could fall behind at any moment. It's like running a race, except sometimes the terrain under your feet loops back on itself. In a usual race, you can exert yourself early, then ease up. With the randomness, you are urged to continue applying your best.
The reason for tripping then is clear. Because it is random (and it meets additional criteria below), it incites more competitive play, it calls on the gamers to put in their best, every second.
Now to tie up loose ends. One, the random element can't be game breaking of itself. That, essentially, makes the luck factor inappropriately huge compared to the skill factor. Tripping is not game-ending on its own (you still have to be hit, and you have to be damaged beforehand, too).
Two, the random element must not scale inversely with the board position. This would be exemplified by, say, the blue shell in Mario Kart, which seeks the first player. This obviously punishes those who have earned their position, paradoxically rewarding suboptimal play. Tripping provides the same disadvantage no matter when it occurs: lag.
And that's it! Notice though I've abstracted away from the detail that tripping is not purely random - it only happens when you run. This allows players to interact with it, adding a dimension of expertise to gameplay, in two directions, obviously: How to capitalize on your opponent's tripping (or rather, the chance that he will do so if and when he runs), and how to rationally manage the risk of running with the rewards.
To show the depth of the latter, to know the difference between a time when running poses little benefit yet risks game loss, and times otherwise - that is, whether running will increase the chance of victory, or decrease it - and to demonstrate this knowledge consistently throughout a match, shows practice, sense, and skill.
Sorry for the bad syntax in the last paragraph. I lost my English, has anyone seen it?
Now for intellectual honesty, I can't say I got this idea through pure intellection. I'm just adapting the writing of another for our purposes. It's an online article by Noah Weil, "Errors and Judgment."
My $3.50.
Phazonridley480
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2007
- Messages
- 38
I have only tripped about 5 times and never got ko'd. It always happens in the rest area when I do a sudden dash. Tripping isn't random. Maybe it is because I dont use wave dancing?
DemonFirebrand
Smash Rookie
I was sad that tripping was put into Brawl, but I still see potential for competitive play and refuse to let something I have no control over bother me.
If you trip into an attack and die at a lower percent than usual, you shouldn't look at the trip but more why you had enough damage to be killed off the stage by an attack that was probably started BEFORE you tripped in the first place.
If you trip into an attack and die at a lower percent than usual, you shouldn't look at the trip but more why you had enough damage to be killed off the stage by an attack that was probably started BEFORE you tripped in the first place.
UltiMario
Out of Obscurity
People, I ahve to tell you, it feels SO good when you trip into a 9
^_^
*Sarcasm*
Sakurai better give us a tripping update. WHY would he do such a thing?
Better yet, "How to turn off tripping"
:O
But seriously, once, I tripped into a 9, I question why the Match lasted 3:05 D:
^_^
*Sarcasm*
Sakurai better give us a tripping update. WHY would he do such a thing?
Better yet, "How to turn off tripping"
:O
But seriously, once, I tripped into a 9, I question why the Match lasted 3:05 D:
Aesir
Smash Master
So basically what owl is saying, you should punish the people to work to gain that advantage position? Lol no thats dumb.
And you're wrong you do still have to work to maintain the advantage, where ever you got the idea that you didn't is completely false.
And you're wrong you do still have to work to maintain the advantage, where ever you got the idea that you didn't is completely false.
chic
Smash Ace
It's actually saved me a few times as well!
6footninja
Smash Ace
I think a lot of people are just wondering why they thought it a good idea to put tripping in the game.
NekoBoy085
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2008
- Messages
- 98
So then I tripped again. This is when I decided to get up...
*shrugs*
*shrugs*
ShadowLink84
Smash Hero
you are an idiot.
Ganon needed L canceling in order to be playable.
Taymond
Smash Journeyman
@Nok2, people here are talking about random tripping via movement, not tripping caused by attacks. Tripping caused by attacks is somewhat more realistic and defensible, and Diddy's banana's are obviously exempt from the discussion here. You're just being shortsighted and pointlessly antagonistic to claim otherwise. Diddy's bananas are also not random. You can see them, and you can avoid them. You have a degree of control over whether or not you trip on them. You do not have that control for regular tripping.
Also, I cannot even believe your second post. The removal of L-Cancelling makes characters like Ganon have a MUCH HARDER TIME. Blanket-use ATs allowed slower characters to compete with the faster characters because of their ability to greatly reduce the lag behind their moves. Now, without things like L-Cancelling and Wavedashing, the gap between these characters and the "best" characters is almost insurmountable. These characters have no way, now, to overcome their shortcomings. They're stuck with them.
No amount of tripping can possibly do more to help Ganondorf than L-Cancelling and Wavedashing could. Without those things, THEN the faster characters can just run circles around them, like you said.
@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.
Also, I cannot even believe your second post. The removal of L-Cancelling makes characters like Ganon have a MUCH HARDER TIME. Blanket-use ATs allowed slower characters to compete with the faster characters because of their ability to greatly reduce the lag behind their moves. Now, without things like L-Cancelling and Wavedashing, the gap between these characters and the "best" characters is almost insurmountable. These characters have no way, now, to overcome their shortcomings. They're stuck with them.
No amount of tripping can possibly do more to help Ganondorf than L-Cancelling and Wavedashing could. Without those things, THEN the faster characters can just run circles around them, like you said.
@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.
I take it back tripping doesn't give slower characters an advantage I rarely use slower characters I thought they put auto l-canceling on some of Gannon's moves like they did for DK but I guess they didn't. In my previous statement I was guessing why Sakurai might have put tripping in Brawl. Me personally tripping is a liability in tournaments (when money is on the line) but other than that it doesn't bother me that much just a minor annoyance.
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
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
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?
Attractive Penguin
Smash Apprentice
Because then it wouldn't be as hilarious.
Wuss
Smash Champion
^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?
Attractive Penguin
Smash Apprentice
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.
If there had been a tripping switch, both would not be as hilarious, and I and many others around the world would be sad.
Sonic The Hedgedawg
Smash Hero
I will give tripping ine saving grace, if you happen to be being chain thrownor some other such spammy trick, a lucky trip on the part of the opponent sill stop their otherwise unbreakable assault... that might even be the reason it was put in.
thewiredknight
Smash Journeyman
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.
Sakurai more or less said that he likes the idea that someone could be winning the entire match and then all of a sudden the losing player gets lucky (and gets the smash ball) and comes back from behind at the last minute. He described that as the greatest aspect of winning.
Now, from this it is appearent that Sakurai really likes the idea of winning by luck at the last minute and taking skill out of someone coming from behind. Personally this really ticks me off and it screws up more than just multiplayer. Tripping has also adversely affected
Boss battle and multiman - where another player isn't even a function
Target test - where tripping will completely f-up your entire run for a fast time and you have to restart.
I can deal with tripping after playin the game as long as I have now but nonetheless I believe it was a VERY poor design choice even if it only has a 1% chance of occuring. If I'm losing I'd rather pull back from skill, not a 1% chance that the programming will create a huge opening for me. I'm more with the crew behind Devil May Cry who once stated "The best experience for winning any player can ever have; is a win where they are barely alive at the end."
PK-ow!
Smash Lord
Thank you for replying. You seem to understand the idea, unlike Aesir.
I did not overlook the fact that a player gets a lead by earning a lead. But there is also maintaining that lead - earning it, every moment.
How can I justify removing a lead that a player earned? As I said - if that guy is slacking off, and is playing worse than his opponent now, because he thinks he can hold his 50% advantage (or whatever).
Now it seems from your second paragraph (of the ones directed at me) that you just disagree with the plausibility of this premise. And I don't have an argument for this premise itself, at this time. So I'll just leave this here for other persons.
Your next paragraph: Tripping doesn't even the score - it just reduces the advantage of one player. It may still leave him ahead. Plus, it is just as likely for the losing player. You are correct that in the space of single games, "noise" can be actual. That leaves me with only one thing to say: Supposing that the disputed premise above comes resolved in my favor, it comes down to this: How many games actually shift one player from winning to losing, who additionally has the property that he played harder than his opponent all game, *because of* a trip? If there is even one, then you're right. If there isn't, then I think I'm right.
Investigating counterfactuals is always hard, though.
Aesir
Smash Master
Actually no I got the idea I just thought your reasoning was flawed, removing an advantage for someone who worked for it is never justified. Especially if it's random.
It also takes a lot of skill to keep the lead.
To what you said if the person in the lead is slacking off and can't take advantage what makes you think he has the right to win? There have been lots of times in matches where I've slacked off rather then try my hardest to keep the advantage and have lost because of it.
What you're proposing is it's good that the worse player has a chance via luck rather then skill.
It also takes a lot of skill to keep the lead.
To what you said if the person in the lead is slacking off and can't take advantage what makes you think he has the right to win? There have been lots of times in matches where I've slacked off rather then try my hardest to keep the advantage and have lost because of it.
What you're proposing is it's good that the worse player has a chance via luck rather then skill.
Aesir
Smash Master
****ing crashboards.
Taymond
Smash Journeyman
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.
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.
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? Player 1 is clearly better in this case. Player 1 should win. If player 1 can decide whether to play at his peak the entire time and win, or play a little half-heartedly and still win, and player 2 was playing his peak the entire time... then Player 1 is better, Player 1 should win.
I think you generalize a little too far. Maintaining a lead still requires skill. If the lead was gained in a fluke, and player 1 actually deserves to lose, then assuming the match is long enough, player 2 will take the deserved lead. Tripping is one such fluke. It can disorient how things should have proceeded.
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? Well then.. if you take the number of matches played to infinity, eventually it'll happen. Even if there is, in fact, only one time that it happens (which I doubt), that 1 time, as you said, is enough to support my argument that it is unfair.
I realize that an enormous fraction of the time, tripping won't be able to cause such a shift. But the possibility exists, and if the possibility exists, it will eventually happen. That's just how.. "eventually" works.
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.
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.
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? Player 1 is clearly better in this case. Player 1 should win. If player 1 can decide whether to play at his peak the entire time and win, or play a little half-heartedly and still win, and player 2 was playing his peak the entire time... then Player 1 is better, Player 1 should win.
I think you generalize a little too far. Maintaining a lead still requires skill. If the lead was gained in a fluke, and player 1 actually deserves to lose, then assuming the match is long enough, player 2 will take the deserved lead. Tripping is one such fluke. It can disorient how things should have proceeded.
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? Well then.. if you take the number of matches played to infinity, eventually it'll happen. Even if there is, in fact, only one time that it happens (which I doubt), that 1 time, as you said, is enough to support my argument that it is unfair.
I realize that an enormous fraction of the time, tripping won't be able to cause such a shift. But the possibility exists, and if the possibility exists, it will eventually happen. That's just how.. "eventually" works.
I, personally, don't think it's that big of a problem as well. Honestly, I don't even know why it's such a big issue amoung the smash world.
But also, to contradict myself, I can understand how its randomness can be annoying.
But also, to contradict myself, I can understand how its randomness can be annoying.
Tripping does have its pros and cons. It could save you but could potentially cause you to lose the match. Generally it is very annoying as it slows you down when you're trying to aggressively press your opponent and it does suck when you trip right in front of whoever you're facing, setting yourself up for a hit. In tournament play it seems unfair to lose because of the random occurrence of tripping and not because of skill level.
Lucky 1276
Smash Rookie
My main,pikachu, really never experiences that problem except on the practice stage online. I always have pikachu rolling,shielding,smashing and jumping all over so i've never really had something like that interfere in my gameplay, but i also agree with the others; why the heck do your characters trip??? i would understand if it was a banana they had tripped on but honestly; most stages are FLAT what in the world do you trip on? air? gravity? an invisible banana? or is there a little imp who trips you to be mean? it's pointless except to be laughed at...
the whole idea of tripping has got to be the most stupid addition in brawl. Sakurai must of been high, falling all over the place, then suddenly the idea of adding tripping sparked into his mind. I've lost countless matches because of this, and now dash dancing isn't really apart of my game any more. The characters I used are mainly ground types and it sucks that now I have to take tripping into account. 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...
Attractive Penguin
Smash Apprentice
Mario also can't whip out the FLUDD in Mario Galaxy.
Samus can't kick or punch in Metroid Prime.
Link can't even jump.
Assault was a terrible game.
Sonic just plain sucks now.
Meta Knight is a homosexual.
Really, you're trying to reason why they tried to add REALISM into a game with a bunch of characters from different universes. Realism that isn't very realistic at that.
Dizzynecro
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 446
Yes it TRULY is.
SK8orDIE
Smash Apprentice
Unless I'm mistaken, tripping is avoidable. If you don't dash, you won't trip, right? We're used to always dashing because in previous games it had no real negative consequence. Now, dashing follows a risk/reward paradigm just like the whole attack, block, grab system. Mobility is gained, at the cost of potential vulnerability.
Other examples of risk/reward include Mr. Game & Watch's side-B and Jigglypuff's Rest attack. Neither of these are really disputed, but both have the opportunity to score an instant kill. And it's only an opportunity.
I'm not a fan of tripping, but it doesn't break the game for me. It just makes me roll and jump more when movement is really important.
Other examples of risk/reward include Mr. Game & Watch's side-B and Jigglypuff's Rest attack. Neither of these are really disputed, but both have the opportunity to score an instant kill. And it's only an opportunity.
I'm not a fan of tripping, but it doesn't break the game for me. It just makes me roll and jump more when movement is really important.
Taymond
Smash Journeyman
Well, first off, Jigglypuff's Rest is in no way random. The move will always connect if the hitbox connects. The hitbox is so small that genuine misses are interpreted as random failures to players who don't fully understand the move.
G&W's judgement and Luigi's misfire, while related, are not exactly comparable situations. Those moves are 1 out of 16 different moves, not counting jabs individually for luigi, that they have at their disposal. If the risk of using said move is too high, the choice not to do so does not negatively impair you in any noticeable way. They've got 15 other moves they could use instead, they're not very hurt by the loss of 1.
Dashing is one of only three movement options. You can dash, you can walk, or you can jump. Removing the use of any one is severely more detrimental to a player's actions than the removal of 1 move from their arsenal.
G&W's judgement and Luigi's misfire, while related, are not exactly comparable situations. Those moves are 1 out of 16 different moves, not counting jabs individually for luigi, that they have at their disposal. If the risk of using said move is too high, the choice not to do so does not negatively impair you in any noticeable way. They've got 15 other moves they could use instead, they're not very hurt by the loss of 1.
Dashing is one of only three movement options. You can dash, you can walk, or you can jump. Removing the use of any one is severely more detrimental to a player's actions than the removal of 1 move from their arsenal.
Did anyone see Zero punctuation yesterday?
I quote:
"After killing one of his enemies, Travis (The main character in "No more Heros," the game being reviewed) has a random chance of yelling out the names of one of his favorite puddings, giving him super powers for a bit. And when you put random chance into combat mechanics, all strategy has been thrown out the window then scraped off the ground and used to clean up the broken glass."
Maybe you guys prefer Yhatzee's opinion over some of us other people?
PS Skate or Die: you can trip when doing certain moves even if you aren't dashing
I quote:
"After killing one of his enemies, Travis (The main character in "No more Heros," the game being reviewed) has a random chance of yelling out the names of one of his favorite puddings, giving him super powers for a bit. And when you put random chance into combat mechanics, all strategy has been thrown out the window then scraped off the ground and used to clean up the broken glass."
Maybe you guys prefer Yhatzee's opinion over some of us other people?
PS Skate or Die: you can trip when doing certain moves even if you aren't dashing
susu_atari
Smash Ace
I've never actually had a trip actually hinder me in any real way. I've just racked up my 1000th Brawl, and I've never even been hit out of a trip, let alone KO'd. It mostly just messes up what I plan to do next.
The worst it's done is mess up an edge guard, forcing me to retreat.
The worst it's done is mess up an edge guard, forcing me to retreat.
PK-ow!
Smash Lord
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.
I had to avoid mentioning frequency of hits, and knockback, and I removed fluctuations in damage-rate by describing the "damage-speed" over the period of time 6 seconds. Spiking is not mentioned. All this for simplicity, but I hope I'm right that it doesn't reduce the applicability of the example.
Now, I merely equalled you all game, *after the first K.O.* Do you agree?
Normally I'd go on, but if I understand what you've been saying, you believe that the fact that I won implies that I must have been playing better than you, at times even after then, correct?
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 I took that into my own words, it's like you're saying that "the total amount of good-playingness" was greater for the one player than the other - one player had more early on, then the totals increased but the one always had more - so therefore, he should win.
I wonder... what about flukes in the Human? The random elements such as a finger slipping, concentration being broken momentarily by sources we don't know (specifically *not* concentration being broken by, say, nerves, or fear, which I won't contend as being external to the 'skill' we mean here), a dust mote in the eye, an itch, these things. What if that happened, and that loss of control is what put P1 ahead of P2?
Such a case would cast doubt on the lynch point in the logical structure of the quote in this section, the part where the having of the advantage demonstrates, by the very fact itself, that the advantaged one has more skill.
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%.
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 other, entirely unrelated news, I've actually never tripped.
Taymond
Smash Journeyman
Unless you can prove that it takes significantly less skill to maintain a lead than it does to gain it, these arguments don't hold together. Say in the first 16 seconds of the match, player 1 outperforms player 2, and the entire rest of the match, player 1 and player 2 perform equally, and the lead remains exactly what it is. Shouldn't player 1 obviously win? They exhibited equal skill for the majority of the match, but for 16 seconds, player 1 exhibited greater skill than player 2, so over the entire match, player 1 exhibited greater total skill than player 2. What is wrong with player 1 winning? He played better, on the whole.
As far as environmental "trips" of sorts, like dust-in-the eye, those are, indeed just as bad. If we could completely eliminate those intrusions into what is meant to be a measure solely of skill, then we would. Any factor that affects the match other than skill is sought to be eliminated.
Tournaments strive to reduce as many outside variables as possible so that the only factor, in an ideal situation, that affects the outcome of the match is skill level. Any factor that intrudes upon this measure of skill is bad. It is bad solely in the sense that it disrupts what a tournament is trying to show, what a competitive match in general strives to show.
As far as environmental "trips" of sorts, like dust-in-the eye, those are, indeed just as bad. If we could completely eliminate those intrusions into what is meant to be a measure solely of skill, then we would. Any factor that affects the match other than skill is sought to be eliminated.
Tournaments strive to reduce as many outside variables as possible so that the only factor, in an ideal situation, that affects the outcome of the match is skill level. Any factor that intrudes upon this measure of skill is bad. It is bad solely in the sense that it disrupts what a tournament is trying to show, what a competitive match in general strives to show.