Turnips and Friends

B1ackJack

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
13
Location
Purchase, NY
3DS FC
4596-9584-8500
NNID
Zakabajak94
#1
It always felt cheap and gimmicky to me that Peach can randomly pick up stitch faces and other items like beam swords, bob-ombs, and Mr. Saturns sometimes. While rare, these stronger items can give Peach an edge in a match where she might not normally have one. Things that are based on chance and not on pure skill are generally frowned upon in the competitive Smash community, but there's been a distinctly apologetic approach to this issue in my opinion. But since Project M probably has the capability of removing this mechanic, I'd like to make a case for doing so.

I can see the reasoning behind why people like having this as a part of her moveset. It's cool, dynamic, and can be absolutely hilarious sometimes, but it's inherently unfair. Of course, using these stronger items to your advantage still takes skill, but you could say that about items in general and they aren't used in competitive play. While the way that Peach brings items into play as opposed to items appearing on their own is comparatively better (they won't potentially spawn on top of you and make you explode for example), it still isn't great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSX1B3-T1Cg
If you jump to 6:05 in this match, Armada gets lucky as hell with that bob-omb which got him a stock where he otherwise might not have. This potentially helped win him the match, and luck shouldn't really have a role in that in a competitive game.

Unfair randomness that was injected into some characters in Melee has been addressed in Project M already too. Luigi's side B used to have a random chance of misfiring, but now it's something that can be intentionally utilized and prepared for. Mr. Game and Watch's Side B now indicates if the next attack will be odd or even (which is still not ideal, but at least better than Melee). So why not change Peach's inherently random design too?

I don't think that removing the chance of picking up non-turnip items would really harm Peach's character at all either. It's not like Peach mains rely on the chance of finding them. It's just kind of a remnant of Sakurai's casual design mentality that still found it's way into Project M, a game that is designed to be competitive.

So that's why I think that changing this mechanic is worth considering by the PMBR. Take it as you will from this newbie's first post, but I just thought I'd share my two cents. Also if this is implemented in Project M and people miss having it around, then by all means they can still play Melee or Brawl lol.

Thoughts?
 

Babatunde

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
309
Location
Nashville,TN
3DS FC
2938-7558-8507
NNID
BABS!
#2
First i wanna address the assessing of the randomness issue, say if they did take out the randomness of Peach's turnip tosses, wouldn't that just make her more deadly? I see the examples you gave on G&W and Luigi, Difference is, im sure that was done to their moves because THEY ACTUALLY NEEDED IT. Luigi and G&W weren't top tier in Melee so of course they would make these buffs to their randomness factor, to give them a competitive edge and more viability.

Now the difference between those characters and Peach is that she was already top tier from melee, but not overpowered in anyway. Not because of the fact that she can pull strong and effective items randomly, rather it was because of her amazing priority, Aerial game, Spacing game with
her float,Edgeguarding/Zoning game with her turnips and aerials, Damage racking game due to her combo game and Dsmash, and her punish game. Therefore she has not been changed neither does she need any to her "cheap gimmicky luck factor."
 

B1ackJack

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
13
Location
Purchase, NY
3DS FC
4596-9584-8500
NNID
Zakabajak94
#3
I guess I wasn't totally clear, but what I meant was to make it so she pulls up nothing but normal turnips, which would in no way be a buff.

I also wasn't intending to addressing the issue in terms of position on the tier list, but relative to good design. I'm mostly saying that moves that rely on randomness conflict with the solely skill based, competitive nature of Smash Bros, and that I think they should be removed or altered wherever possible.
 

Babatunde

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
309
Location
Nashville,TN
3DS FC
2938-7558-8507
NNID
BABS!
#4

B1ackJack

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
13
Location
Purchase, NY
3DS FC
4596-9584-8500
NNID
Zakabajak94
#5
You're proving my point here though: bull**** like that, despite being hype and funny and whatever, really doesn't belong in a competitive game like smash. Sure whenever 9's and misfires and stitchfaces show up they can be used skillfully, but anything can be used skillfully, and it's awesome to see when things like that in those videos show up but it's still better suited for casual play where it doesn't matter as much that solely the better player in that situation should win. Luck shouldn't win matches for people and RNG shouldn't screw people over in competitive games though. Playing smart and well without any of that extra noise should be the main deciding factor.
 

Babatunde

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
309
Location
Nashville,TN
3DS FC
2938-7558-8507
NNID
BABS!
#6
Another thing you shouldn't forget is that, Disclaimer: THIS GAME WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE COMPETITIVE. Sakurai never thought "Hmmmmmm, lemmie add dese here attributes to these characters to make Scrubs salty." He thought "Lemmie add these defining atributes that made these nintendo characters who they were/are today." And guess what, it's because of those things (and other unintentional things) that allowed us to shape them into the competitive smash game we know and love today.
 

B1ackJack

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
13
Location
Purchase, NY
3DS FC
4596-9584-8500
NNID
Zakabajak94
#7
I understand that, but the thing is that Project M IS meant to be competitive, so it should strive to meet that standard as best as possible.
 

Babatunde

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
309
Location
Nashville,TN
3DS FC
2938-7558-8507
NNID
BABS!
#8
Even if u did take out the items, there would still be Stitchfaces, And Strong bad said before hat there are coding limitations that would prevent certain changes.
 

Skadorski

// s o n d e r
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Florida
NNID
Skadorski
#9
Hello, I'm a random fighting-game, MOBA playing... essentially, I'm a semi-competitive gamer who knows a lot about different competitive scenes and competitions.
Let's get to the real meat of the topic; randomness, or RNG, in competitive games. Looking at other fighting games, such as Street Fighter, Marvel, or even Blazblue, there is a lack of luck-dependent factors. Rarely are there instances in these games where luck can determine a match. There are rare cases of RNG (though the actual produced item is based on a timer, too strict to be purposely be abused in a real match), such as Hsien-Ko's projectile toss, possessing an assortment of different objects that can be thrown with differing effects and ranges. These are not gamechanging.
Looking at games such as Pokemon or TCGs like Magic or Yugioh, however, there is an overwhelming amount of luck. How can such games be considered "competitive" when the whole game is essentially based around luck?
Games such as these do rely on luck, however they also rely on players being able to take risks. In the case of TCGs, there are cards that allow you to draw cards from your deck. There are also cards made to support "bad hands" by stalling for a certain amount of time (see: Swords of Revealing Light from Yugioh). Basically, players can base decks (or movesets, in the case of Pokemon games) around reducing the "luck" factor.
So how does this apply to the Smash series?
Well, for one, a game can be competitive even if it has RNG within the game. How? Two things: risk-reward and counter-play. An example of risk-reward is Game and Watch's side-b. While his side-b contain strong abilities such as his 9, he also has a harming number, which is 1. You can't predict (as far as I know) which one you're going to get, but you know what you are capable of getting and thus must be thought of while making the decision to use the move. There is nothing wrong with this in competition, you could even say it even applies to the smash series in general with how you can approach and what may happen.
As for Peach, both players know what turnip (or item) Peach pulls out. While there's nothing harming Peach directly with what she pulls, there is still counter-play with her objects. Now, some of her items can apply game-altering pressure to the opponent; there is nothing inherently wrong with this either. It requires the opponent to change their playstyle. That's it. As long as the items aren't strong to the point where you cannot deal with them (in which, if P:M's bombs are as ridiculous as Brawl bombs, they can probably tone them down a bit), there's nothing wrong with this. Luck is prevalent in many games, competitive or casual.

On a side note, an example of bad luck in a competitive game is tripping in Brawl. You're doing a basic action (walking, running, moving) that that randomly puts you in a position that is ridiculously beneficial to your opponent.
 

B1ackJack

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
13
Location
Purchase, NY
3DS FC
4596-9584-8500
NNID
Zakabajak94
#10
Looking at games such as Pokemon or TCGs like Magic or Yugioh, however, there is an overwhelming amount of luck. How can such games be considered "competitive" when the whole game is essentially based around luck?
Of course they can be considered competitive, anything can be so long as there are players opposing each other. But if your goal is to determine who is more skillful at the time within the gameplay system, random games are less efficient at communicating consistent feedback this way. Certainly players will have varying levels of skill, but due to RNG the outcome of matches can fluctuate much more often than a game without that. I would personally call it optimal for games intending to have a fair, competitive atmosphere to avoid randomness.

Well, for one, a game can be competitive even if it has RNG within the game. How? Two things: risk-reward and counter-play. An example of risk-reward is Game and Watch's side-b. While his side-b contain strong abilities such as his 9, he also has a harming number, which is 1. You can't predict (as far as I know) which one you're going to get, but you know what you are capable of getting and thus must be thought of while making the decision to use the move. There is nothing wrong with this in competition, you could even say it even applies to the smash series in general with how you can approach and what may happen.
I wouldn't really call it fair if it's impossible to be able to consistently predict what an attack can do to you. Players should be able to react to what they know their opponent might intend to do, and that feels random enough on its own since they don't know what they are thinking.

As for Peach, both players know what turnip (or item) Peach pulls out. While there's nothing harming Peach directly with what she pulls, there is still counter-play with her objects. Now, some of her items can apply game-altering pressure to the opponent, there is nothing inherently wrong with this either. It requires the opponent to change their playstyle. That's it. As long as the items aren't strong to the point where you cannot deal with them (in which, if P:M's bombs are as ridiculous as Brawl bombs, they can probably tone them down a bit), there's nothing wrong with this. Luck is prevalent in many games, competitive or casual.
Well yeah, a player can adapt to any situation, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense that they should be put in that position in the first place. It just feels ****ty when the person you're playing against suddenly gains an advantage that not even they knew they would have, through no agency of their own.
 

Skadorski

// s o n d e r
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
1,691
Location
Florida
NNID
Skadorski
#11
Of course they can be considered competitive, anything can be so long as there are players opposing each other.
But if your goal is to determine who is more skillful at the time within the gameplay system, random games are less efficient at communicating consistent feedback this way. Certainly players will have varying levels of skill, but due to RNG the outcome of matches can fluctuate much more often than a game without that. I would personally call it optimal for games intending to have a fair, competitive atmosphere to avoid randomness.
Games involving luck can still be determined by skill consistantly. Look at poker! High-level poker players are able to recognize situations and risk-reward, something players of lower skill can't do. This is entirely skill. Sure, a world-class poker player can lose to anyone a few hands, but overall they're win because they are more skilled. Same goes with other games, certain cards adapt to certain decks, certain situations, etc.
An optimal situation for a competitive game is, indeed, the better player to win. But what defines a better player? What if a player is better at the physical, mechanical aspects of the game, while the other is better at the mental part of the game? Who is better in this situation? You'll likely say the winner of the game.
It's simply the nature of the game and there's nothing wrong with such nature.


I wouldn't really call it fair if it's impossible to be able to consistently predict what an attack can do to you. Players should be able to react to what they know their opponent might intend to do, and that feels random enough on its own since they don't know what they are thinking.
This is an interesting point. Not knowing what the enemy is going to do, you said it yourself, seems random. It comes down to risk-reward, which is also what is used in certain luck-based situations. This is simply a part of adapting to and understanding of situations.


Well yeah, a player can adapt to any situation, but that doesn't mean that it makes sense that they should be put in that position in the first place. It just feels ****ty when the person you're playing against suddenly gains an advantage that not even they knew they would have, through no agency of their own.
I see where you're coming from. It gives an advantage to a player who may otherwise be losing. But it also gives an interesting option to Peach. It isn't game-breaking or over-centralizing. It's something the character has. It gives a chance for players to either get back into the game or give them an extra advantage.
Anyway, I can't prove that this should stay the same. Things aren't black-and-white like that. It's entirely down to opinion. I understand where you're coming from, and I assume you understand my train of thought as well.
 

Babatunde

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
309
Location
Nashville,TN
3DS FC
2938-7558-8507
NNID
BABS!
#12
I mean, the fact that it's rare in itself should validate that nothing should be done to it. Its not like Peach is gonna pull 2 Bombs guaranteed per match or something. Which would cause us to rely on.......Playing smart without em.
 

B1ackJack

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
13
Location
Purchase, NY
3DS FC
4596-9584-8500
NNID
Zakabajak94
#13
Games involving luck can still be determined by skill consistantly. Look at poker! High-level poker players are able to recognize situations and risk-reward, something players of lower skill can't do. This is entirely skill. Sure, a world-class poker player can lose to anyone a few hands, but overall they're win because they are more skilled. Same goes with other games, certain cards adapt to certain decks, certain situations, etc.
An optimal situation for a competitive game is, indeed, the better player to win. But what defines a better player? What if a player is better at the physical, mechanical aspects of the game, while the other is better at the mental part of the game? Who is better in this situation? You'll likely say the winner of the game.
It's simply the nature of the game and there's nothing wrong with such nature.
I do agree that there is a vast amount of skill to be had in luck based games, but the skill cap is lower because of the luck. I'd say being skilled at these kind of games, which is of course still impressive and takes time and dedication, is adapting your playstyle to a flawed system. You end up playing a lot of the time against the game itself rather than against your opponent because randomness is a factor that can potentially work against you.

I see where you're coming from. It gives an advantage to a player who may otherwise be losing. But it also gives an interesting option to Peach. It isn't game-breaking or over-centralizing. It's something the character has. It gives a chance for players to either get back into the game or give them an extra advantage.
Anyway, I can't prove that this should stay the same. Things aren't black-and-white like that. It's entirely down to opinion. I understand where you're coming from, and I assume you understand my train of thought as well.
Yeah I definitely see where you're coming from as well, and I guess it comes down to whether or not you're okay with sacrificing a bit of interest and dynamism for the sake of balance.

I mean, the fact that it's rare in itself should validate that nothing should be done to it. Its not like Peach is gonna pull 2 Bombs guaranteed per match or something. Which would cause us to rely on.......Playing smart without em.
It is rare, but it can still happen and can still screw someone over. Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't make it feel any better when it does and it makes you lose a round that you shouldn't have by little to no fault of your own. I personally just see it as settling for something imperfect and I don't like that, but you're free to feel differently of course.
 

oirasorledyelsie

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
77
#14
I do agree that there is a vast amount of skill to be had in luck based games, but the skill cap is lower because of the luck. I'd say being skilled at these kind of games, which is of course still impressive and takes time and dedication, is adapting your playstyle to a flawed system. You end up playing a lot of the time against the game itself rather than against your opponent because randomness is a factor that can potentially work against you.


It is rare, but it can still happen and can still screw someone over. Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't make it feel any better when it does and it makes you lose a round that you shouldn't have by little to no fault of your own. I personally just see it as settling for something imperfect and I don't like that, but you're free to feel differently of course.

I have been hit several times while pulling Bob-ombs. Just sayin'
 

Wavebuster

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
261
#16
You can actually interact with Peach's randomness on both ends. It's not even close to how G&W's and even Luigi's randomness can turn matches assuming you have a head on your shoulders..
 

B1ackJack

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
13
Location
Purchase, NY
3DS FC
4596-9584-8500
NNID
Zakabajak94
#17
You can actually interact with Peach's randomness on both ends. It's not even close to how G&W's and even Luigi's randomness can turn matches assuming you have a head on your shoulders..
Oh don't get me wrong, I know that Peach's randomness compared to Luigi's and G&W's actually takes skill to utilize so it is better. I mainly brought them up for the sake of comparison because they were addressed in PM to make them more skillful.

I see your point, that for instance an opponent could catch the stitchface that Peach throws at them and throw it back. While this is theoretically a valid argument, Peach initially has the unbalanced advantage of deciding when to throw this ridiculously powerful, quick to execute projectile and can hold it indefinitely in order to play mind games and catch their opponent off guard with it. So yes it takes skill, but it's being skillful with an inherently unfair advantage.

There is a vastly larger set of examples of Peach getting the edge with a random powerful item than their opponent. Sure, the opponent can get the advantage here, but it's even more likely for Peach to simply miss, and this creates a situation where she is at little to no risk while her foe has to adjust their playstyle to not get screwed over by something that neither player was really in control of. I said it before, but I don't think it's ideal for a player to play against the game and it's RNG rather than the person they are actually playing against.
 

LydianAlchemist

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
110
Location
Petaluma, CA
#18
At least with Luigi you can tell if you're going to misfire, or with GW you can tell if the next hit will be even or odd (50% + chance of it being a 9)

Perhaps a healthy compromise would be an indicator so that both players know if peach is about to pull a stitch face? If that were at all possible.

Perhaps not.
 

MattNF

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Messages
1,867
Location
Florida
#19
the fact that random turnips still exist in a supposedly "competitive" and "fair" Brawl mod doesn't make any sense to me. Random turnips are as balanced as random tripping.
 

Babatunde

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
309
Location
Nashville,TN
3DS FC
2938-7558-8507
NNID
BABS!
#20
Difference being that I'm sure that Peach pulling a Bomb/Stitch/etc isn't gonna be as much of a detriment to the PM competitive community (Especially since no one uses her lol) As tripping was to Brawl's.
 

Cat Nip

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
11
Location
Texas, USA
#21
Not only is it not much of a detriment, but remember that it's a game. Yes, it's competitive and whatnot but keep it fun at least. That part of Peach is pretty fun and hey, if you're the guy who power shields a random bob-omb and gets a kill, that's pretty hype too. I wouldn't sacrifice fun for more competitive, unless it was something huge, because that just makes smash more...stressful, which obviously it shouldn't be.

I am off my soapbox, you may now post rebuttals and call me a scrub :p
 

Smo

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Sep 17, 2005
Messages
280
Location
Nottingham UK
#22
Maybe stitchfaces on every nth turnip? Say, every 40 turnips pulled, you will get a stitchface, every 15, you get dot face, every 7 turnips, you get winkface. Dunno if it's possible, and I don't know if it would be balanced. But it wouldn't be random, at least. Both players would have to play a ‘card counting’ game in the match.
 

Babatunde

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
309
Location
Nashville,TN
3DS FC
2938-7558-8507
NNID
BABS!
#23
^ Who are you and what mythical drug have you inserted into your mouth and evaporated in a sheet of paper?
(If so, can i have some :p)
 

Alteffor

Smash Rookie
Joined
Nov 29, 2013
Messages
19
#24
Long time lurker first time poster. Hi fellow Peach players :)

I think that the RNG system right now behind the turnips is flawed. Other characters who use the RNG (Luigi misifires, GnW Hammers, Dedede Waddle dees) take the risks upon themselves when they're gambling. This allows for cool, risk-reward gameplay which allow for spectacular fun kills based off smart play of the character. This is where Peach differs from them. Luigi's rocket and the GnW hammer, and to an extent Dedede's waddle dee are very punishable moves. Turnips are fairly low risk and you generally just incorporate them into your game, and good turnips are rare enough you are never expecting them to come up, it's just a very nice bonus when they do. This means all the risk and thoughtful gameplay is put on the opponent to always have to play cautiously around turnips lest they get screwed by the RNG.

That said, I think the stitchface/dotface/bomb-omb/sword (maybe less so sword) gameplay is too unique and interesting to throw out the window entirely. It promotes playing careful with your resources and respecting the turnips you pull.

I've been thinking about what good middle ground could be reached that puts the risk-reward thinking process on peach rather than the opponent, and I came up with an idea. I find it very likely that people will either love or hate this idea so I just wanted to post it to get it out there.

There's an underutilized high-risk, low reward move in Peach's neutral-B. The toad counter is very punishable on whiff, high endlag, and not very rewarding on hit. My idea was to count damage done to the Toad, and increase the likelihood of non-turnip items spawning based on the damage you've put into toad since you pulled the last turnip. When you pull a turnips, the damage counter is reset, and it rolls for an item with higher likelihood of better pulls the higher it is. The exact likelihoods of these would be something that would have to be properly thought about, playtested and balanced obviously, but I think there could be a cool balance found there. This has a few really cool advantages. It brings use to a move I rarely see Peach players use (and for good reason), brings the risk-reward gameplay to Peach so she has to think for her turnip pulls, makes it unlikely that a lucky turnip pull will happen when gimping with turnips (I think turnips are good enough for gimping as is), and finally, makes it so the RNG has less control over the fate of the game.

Any thoughts?
 

B1ackJack

Smash Rookie
Joined
Oct 30, 2013
Messages
13
Location
Purchase, NY
3DS FC
4596-9584-8500
NNID
Zakabajak94
#25
There's an underutilized high-risk, low reward move in Peach's neutral-B. The toad counter is very punishable on whiff, high endlag, and not very rewarding on hit. My idea was to count damage done to the Toad, and increase the likelihood of non-turnip items spawning based on the damage you've put into toad since you pulled the last turnip. When you pull a turnips, the damage counter is reset, and it rolls for an item with higher likelihood of better pulls the higher it is. The exact likelihoods of these would be something that would have to be properly thought about, playtested and balanced obviously, but I think there could be a cool balance found there. This has a few really cool advantages. It brings use to a move I rarely see Peach players use (and for good reason), brings the risk-reward gameplay to Peach so she has to think for her turnip pulls, makes it unlikely that a lucky turnip pull will happen when gimping with turnips (I think turnips are good enough for gimping as is), and finally, makes it so the RNG has less control over the fate of the game.
I think this is a brilliant idea. The neutral b as well down b would have to be balanced I think so that people will actually bother to work for stronger turnips. If the turnips are reliable enough as they are now at their weakest, it would need to be not TOO risky to try to incorporate neutral b into people's Peach game so they would actually use it. But I think this could be really!
 

Handles

Smash Cadet
Joined
Apr 20, 2009
Messages
31
Location
Grove, OK
#26
I really don't mind the way the turnips show up, but I have come to the point that I would prefer playing Peach without bombs or swords, although I don't mind Mr. Saturn pulls, since he does strong shield damage.

I personally have had too many matches where I got SDed from pulling a Bob-omb and just getting hit once and it exploded. And the same with the Beam Sword, I just have it knocked out of my hands and thrown at me repeatedly if I didn't just throw the thing off the stage so it wouldn't happen.

But, who knows, maybe a version of Peach, or a Peach clone, could be made that has either only three different types of turnips could work, or just have a regular turnip, but have a cool mechanic like long pulling for different size turnips would turn out better.

I would have to say though, that I would prefer to win consistently by having a consistent character, over just winning by getting lucky and my opponents not realize I threw Stitch Face. But unfortunately, I need a character like Peach, because I lack the necessary technical skill to win consistently with a character that doesn't have the luck factor in their move set.

I think for this game to remain enjoyable, even on a competitive level, it needs to keep characters with specific skill sets, such as luck, RNG, or strong close quarters fighting, in order to keep enough variety in gameplay, and to keep the game interesting.

Also, if a person wanted to play a fighting game where it was skill based only, that person could only play such a game where there was only one selectable character to choose from. Only then could the two contestants be fighting on equal terms, and only have their skill be the difference.
 

JDIZ

Smash Cadet
Joined
Oct 17, 2013
Messages
37
Location
Lafayette, LA
#27
You know you can dodge or shield the bombs right? It's not like if I pull a bomb you just automatically lose a stock. And I can potentially kill myself with it as well. I don't care if the beam sword is removed though. Most of the time my opponent is too good and will just end up using it against me anyway.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2014
Messages
954
Location
Southern California
#28
I love the beam sword

I pulled it once and slashed three times before we (opponent & I) paused and checked it out. It's that rare.

Pretty funny to play like a really fast Ike who goes "yah!" In a significantly higher octave
 
Last edited:
Top