Why Banning Tripping Should be Considered at Most National/Regional Brawl Tournaments

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

magic... That game isn't competitive.

they make way more money then us and put way more on the line than we do though.

Yet multiple players consistently place top 8 at top level events in that game.

Even in MtG, while luck is part of it due to the very nature of card games, but you can alter these chances with smart deck building.

Putting 4 copies of a card in a 60 card decks gives you a 33% chance of drawing it in your opening hand, assuming no mulligans.

It's luck because of the nature of the game, but to say it's not competitive is foolhardy.

 

[adumbrodeus]

The fact that there is a psychological distinction suggests that there may be a literal distinction. There is a large difference between "good"/"better" result possibilities and "good"/"bad" result possibilities, and it's likely that improperly weighted "good"/"bad" possibilities are design flaws in ways that standard "good"/"bad" possibilities aren't.

Yes, improperly weighted, but IS it improperly weighted?

You're sort of assuming that based on failure being a net disadvantage.

This sounds like an assumption rather than a truth. A lot of competitive games rely on random chance to work. It's just that traditional fighters didn't play around with the concept as much.
This statement is not completely supported by modern science. It's just as likely that God loves his dice.

The idea of competitive gaming at it's core is to select for a certain set of skills, and random events most of the time disproportionately effect one player or the other.


Competitive games that do have heavy elements of random chance tend to have a few attributes:

1. Many confrontations (that way you can amortize results and be accurate).

2. Strong mathmatical elements.


Generally without this, or some other mitigating factor, it becomes a coinflip game.

IMPORTANT PART
legally and because of the hassle of hacking and what not its easier to live with it.
morally theres no reason and competitvely it should be removed. if you could snap your fingers and every machine in the venue at a tournament would having tripping removed then i think it would be silly not to do it. Again with hassle and legal issues come into play its not that big of a deal just to keep it in. i feel this has come full circle.

Since this is your central argument I'll just respond to this.

If the game came preloaded with the ability to turn off tripping, I would agree to turn it off. However there are other examples of randomness that are just as intrusive and are generally ignored by the community which I would be happy to remove.

Barring the game having that option, we should not be messing with the programming because it makes it near impossible to establish a stable competitive scene in addition to all the other cited practical issues (how many different hacked environments do we have?).

 

[Black Marf]

Yes, improperly weighted, but IS it improperly weighted?

You're sort of assuming that based on failure being a net disadvantage.

Most people would conclude that dashing does not warrant being punished, like with tripping. To me, it feels like it's improperly weighted, and most people agree. Hence why everyone I know wishes it wasn't in the game.

The idea of competitive gaming at it's core is to select for a certain set of skills, and random events most of the time disproportionately effect one player or the other.

Yes. And one of the skills that can be tested is dealing with uncertainty. Actual, quantifiable uncertainty, not all the mindgames bullocks. The fact that fighting games opt not to test that skill as much as other games is a feature of the games in the genre, not an aspect that makes them more competitive (similarly, its exclusion doesn't make them less competitive either).

2. Strong mathmatical elements.

I'm pretty sure this exists in every competitive game based on chance. Regardless, your string of further arguments didn't seem to disprove my point. It just presented that random chance, when used in a game incorrectly, can ruin its competitive value. This does not mean that random chance in itself is uncompetitive.

Since this is your central argument I'll just respond to this.

My central argument is that tripping is bad game design. However, I never said that we should enforce the policy presented in this thread because it's bad game design. I was merely attempting to shed light on why people are hellbent on contrasting the different versions of random in the game. To me, they are doing so because, in the realm of game design and game theory, they are different types of random.

I believe my assertion was that they would be better without RNG, not that they weren't competitive at all.

Then show me how MtG/Poker would be better without the random elements (I feel dirty throwing out the word random all the time, because not all of these events are truly random).

Unfortunately, I don't think you will be successful, because you seem to be starting from the assumption that dealing with luck-based uncertainty isn't a skill that should be tested for.

 

[Suic]

The mechanics of light are 100% deterministic, it's just that we don't fully understand how it functions.

Once again, just because we lack fundamental understanding of how it functions does not mean that there are no concrete rules for it. Physics
is physics is physics; our current model just doesn't properly account for
quantum-level physics.

We do not lack fundamental understanding! We fundamentally understand that quantum events are truly random based on massive amounts of experimental evidence!

I just don't understand how you can really believe this if you have a decent understanding of the field of quantum physics. To say that we don't, generally speaking, understand quantum properties is the mark of someone who has obviously done little research in the field. Along with the general/special theory of relativity; quantum mechanics is very possibly one of, if not the, most quantitatively verified fields in all of science. It is fully understood that particles do indeed have non-deterministic properties. Now it is possible to say that in a certain sense, particle position/momentum is not totally random. You would indeed be right in saying so (in a sense). Every particle has a probability wave that determines those properties. Because of the shape that these generally take; while it is technically possible that a particle can instantaneously teleport across the universe, the chances of it doing so are so low as to be almost non-existent. Based upon that, I would say that you could possibly get away with calling them pseudo-random or only random in very specific circumstances; but they are, in a mathematical sense, purely and fundamentally random. On that note, the only reason you do not see quantum effects such as this having an effect on everyday life is that the said probability wave of an individual (sub)particle collapses to virtually zero (though not exactly) upon interference with other particles. As a result, though there is a non-zero probability, you never see anyone instantly teleport or other such things that used to be considered physically impossible.

Unlike your examples of spoiled milk and such, quantum mechanics works under a rigid set of very well defined mathematical equations that agree perfectly (within the realm of human possibility) with experimental results. When so many of today's technologies rely on these very equations, how can you possibly say that we lack fundamental understanding?

The only grounds that I think you could mount a coherent argument are that through theoretical physics, we will come upon some equation that proves that everything is indeed deterministic. While this sounds, to those not well read on the subject, valid; it is far from it in reality. In reality, if indeed there are deeper theories that supplant the ones that have been in place for OVER 100 years, then (given the statistical accuracy of quantum mechanics up to this point) only serve to make those equations even more precise than their current form...which would leave the general idea of inherent randomness fully intact.

I know this is insanely off topic, but I couldn't let people go on thinking that we don't understand those underlying laws. You are free to argue back with me, but I would suggest it go to PM from here on out. Sorry, but I am way too interested in theoretical physics to let this kind of stuff go

 

[adumbrodeus]

Most people would conclude that dashing does not warrant being punished, like with tripping. To me, it feels like it's improperly weighted, and most people agree. Hence why everyone I know wishes it wasn't in the game.

However, what I'm pointing out is that there is similarly lopsided reward for said moves, some of the time.

Yes. And one of the skills that can be tested is dealing with uncertainty. Actual, quantifiable uncertainty, not all the mindgames bullocks. The fact that fighting games opt not to test that skill as much as other games is a feature of the games in the genre, not an aspect that makes them more competitive (similarly, its exclusion doesn't make them less competitive either).

Except it will disproportionitely advantage one player or the other.

The skills tested can be a variety of things, and that certainly is one possible skill, however reading your opponents is a more rewarding and interesting skill.

I'm pretty sure this exists in every competitive game based on chance. Regardless, your string of further arguments didn't seem to disprove my point. It just presented that random chance, when used in a game incorrectly, can ruin its competitive value. This does not mean that random chance in itself is uncompetitive.

To a degree, but game design intentionally either minimizes it, or uses strategies to negate it's overall influence (or tournament structure does at least).

As far as uncompetitive goes, the most competitive game possible selects for the person who is better at the skill(s) the game is selecting for 100% of the time, however any additional randomness automatically decreases the selection rate. Granted, there are ways to minimize this effect, but it's still there.





You realize that this was a response to somebody else, right? I don't expect their argument to accurately reflect yours.

My central argument is that tripping is bad game design. However, I never said that we should enforce the policy presented in this thread because it's bad game design. I was merely attempting to shed light on why people are hellbent on contrasting the different versions of random in the game. To me, they are doing so because, in the realm of game design and game theory, they are different types of random.

However, in math and competitive gaming, they have the same net result, which was the point that I was trying to make, you have an increase in selection of the player who is less skilled at whatever the skill the game is testing.

Then show me how MtG/Poker would be better without the random elements (I feel dirty throwing out the word random all the time, because not all of these events are truly random).

Unfortunately, I don't think you will be successful, because you seem to be starting from the assumption that dealing with luck-based uncertainty isn't a skill that should be tested for.

Both games use effective coping strategies in terms of rewarding players for play based around probability, and amortizing play. You can still get screwed by randomness, and I have on more then one occasion, but there's no way to change either without making it unrecognizable.

 

[Black Marf]

However, what I'm pointing out is that there is similarly lopsided reward for said moves, some of the time.

Usually the lopsided rewards are balanced in other ways. Let's look at GDubs' hammer. Although the move has a lot more positive results than negative results (and even if there was just a 9 and a 1, the instakill is worth some damage), the move is also balanced by the fact that it has a relatively small hitbox, is relatively slow, and has some lag. In fact, even if the damage from the 1 was completely removed, the hammer wouldn't be broken.

Except it will disproportionitely advantage one player or the other.

Not that often, from my experience. Someone brought up that you see quite a few repeating names in the top 8 lists for magic. Obviously the chance of being screwed over isn't crippling, kinda like tripping.

The skills tested can be a variety of things, and that certainly is one possible skill, however reading your opponents is a more rewarding and interesting skill.

To be fair, reading exists in both MtG and Poker, but to nowhere near a degree as in fighting games. Also, saying that reading is a more rewarding and interesting skill is an opinion. To be honest, I find the ability to assess uncertainty and chance to be just as interesting and rewarding.

As far as uncompetitive goes, the most competitive game possible selects for the person who is better at the skill(s) the game is selecting for 100% of the time, however any additional randomness automatically decreases the selection rate. Granted, there are ways to minimize this effect, but it's still there.

For one, this is a definition that skews things in favor of your argument. It also doesn't seem to account for games with broken mechanics. After all, a game could have broken or over-centralizing strategies and still select for a variety of criteria with near perfect accuracy.

For another, selecting with 100% accuracy is impossible. We can't know in one specific case if player A pulled off a fantastic read, or hit his opponent because of dumb luck. Similarly, we can't know if Player B properly assessed that he would draw his bomb in MtG, or just got lucky. All competition exists in a sequence of instantaneous events, and for that reason anything with uncertainty in it can be won through luck. This exists for both chance-based uncertainty and uncertainty derived from limited information (fighting games!).

Both games use effective coping strategies in terms of rewarding players for play based around probability, and amortizing play. You can still get screwed by randomness, and I have on more then one occasion, but there's no way to change either without making it unrecognizable.

I suppose that was my point for Thio, but not necessarily phrased in the way I would like. =P

 

[M15t3R E]

I think we can all agree that tripping is NOT an aspect of the game that contributes to Brawl being competitive in any way, right?
Therefore, if the TO loads up each Wii with his SD card that has no tripping, there should be no issues or players crying that somebody rigged their Wii with codes that help them. That's my 2c.

 

[fkacyan]

@Black Marf: I find it slightly ironic that you criticized my ITS A TRAP question and then went ahead and used one yourself. :3

What you asked me to describe is an entirely different game. Keep in mind that I didn't say that Magic or poker was a bad game (If I did, I was wrong), just that it could fail more often for testing for the more skilled competitor than a game with fewer random elements.

 

[ranmaru]

You know, maybe one should ask nintendo about making a competive brawl version... Or at least taking tripping out.

I mean, nintendo would make MORE money if you had to buy this, or maybe as an ADD on to brawl. Like a patch. Like a download, which you could just select tripping off. Maybe something like that.

 

[Black Marf]

@Black Marf: I find it slightly ironic that you criticized my ITS A TRAP question and then went ahead and used one yourself. :3

Yeah I'm a *******. :3
EDIT: They censor that word? lol

Just trying to point out that it's impossible to take out the chance aspect of those games without changing what they test for. You can't take it out to make a "more competitive" game, it'll just be a different game.

What you asked me to describe is an entirely different game. Keep in mind that I didn't say that Magic or poker was a bad game (If I did, I was wrong), just that it could fail more often for testing for the more skilled competitor than a game with fewer random elements.

I feel like at this point the only way we could continue our argument would be using tables upon tables of statistics in multiple competitive environments, probably making a few assumptions along the way. We'd also be defining the term competitive somewhat subjectively, and be having debates about which definition has more merit.

Either that, or we'd repeatedly throw the same arguments at each other while calling the other an idiot.

So basically, it'd be the MK ban thread, except about something much more stupid.

I don't want to do that. Sure, Brawl has a better selection process than Poker/MtG!=D

You know, maybe one should ask nintendo about making a competive brawl version... Or at least taking tripping out.

One the hand, there is no way that idea would ever work why are you even suggesting this.

One the other, Nintendo loves money.

 

[ranmaru]

Yeah, they love money. If it benefits them, why not? You should never cease from thinking outside out of the box. Never can accomplish things this way.

 

[Jack Kieser]

The skills tested can be a variety of things, and that certainly is one possible skill, however reading your opponents is a more rewarding and interesting skill.

Adum, you don't usually make sweeping generalizations like that. Didn't get enough rest last night?

I'd love to see someone prove that reading your opponents is a "more rewarding and interesting skill" than anything else.

I, for instance, think it's far more impressive when the only time someone trips is when there is no chance for the trip to be punished, because that means that the player was using the most rewarding movement options at all times and never put himself in a position where a trip could disadvantage him.

 

[ranmaru]

Yeah I used to try to punish that, but then I'd get punished because they'd probaly be up already. (if I was far away)

 

[Ingulit]

Holy ****, this is getting deep. I'm not even going to try to delve into this conversation, but I'd like to ask a question of people who are against banning tripping. Now, I understand that MLG has picked up Brawl and that really hurts the ability to ban tripping, but what if you, at a local tournament, had every Wii that is to be played on in front of you and each one is hacked. To those who are against banning tripping: would you, in this case (where it is entirely possible to turn tripping off on every Wii easily), would you turn tripping off on these Wiis or leave it on?

Sorry if this has already been asked, but I haven't seen the question posed in what I've read so far.

 

[shadyf0o]

Tripping can never be banned at any MLG tournaments. Hacking Wiis is illegal and MLG would be sued for endorsing it.

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

People need to understand how trading card games work before they say chance overpowers it. There is more to playing the game than drawing random cards and hoping you get a god hand.

 

[fkacyan]

People need to understand how trading card games work before they say chance overpowers it. There is more to playing the game than drawing random cards and hoping you get a god hand.

>skims posts about MtG
>takes away wrong message
>replies to that message

 

[#HBC | Red Ryu]

>skims posts about MtG
>takes away wrong message
>replies to that message

I think I may have gotten off on this the wrong way, forgive me.

On topic: While I think adding tripping is bad for a competitive game, unless moves force a trip or some other factor, but while it's in I don't see why we should take it out when it doesn't influence game outcomes except once in a blue moon.

It's not like people are short hopping/rolling to move around instead of running because of tripping.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Adum, you don't usually make sweeping generalizations like that. Didn't get enough rest last night?

I'd love to see someone prove that reading your opponents is a "more rewarding and interesting skill" than anything else.

Bring it to the Debate Hall, I'll debate you on it.


This has always been a person point that I maintain, especially since it incorporates so many aspects of other skills.

I, for instance, think it's far more impressive when the only time someone trips is when there is no chance for the trip to be punished, because that means that the player was using the most rewarding movement options at all times and never put himself in a position where a trip could disadvantage him.

Maintaining that level of safety requires considerable reading skill or not tripping at all (aka, not dashing).

Usually the lopsided rewards are balanced in other ways. Let's look at GDubs' hammer. Although the move has a lot more positive results than negative results (and even if there was just a 9 and a 1, the instakill is worth some damage), the move is also balanced by the fact that it has a relatively small hitbox, is relatively slow, and has some lag. In fact, even if the damage from the 1 was completely removed, the hammer wouldn't be broken.

More to the point however, is that groupings of individual numbers disproportionately effect the outcomes of individual games where it's relevant.

Not that often, from my experience. Someone brought up that you see quite a few repeating names in the top 8 lists for magic. Obviously the chance of being screwed over isn't crippling, kinda like tripping.

Because magic offers a number of tools to minimize the importance of randomness in it's game design, that's why deck construction and probibility-based play is so important, as well as (of course) reading.

To be fair, reading exists in both MtG and Poker, but to nowhere near a degree as in fighting games. Also, saying that reading is a more rewarding and interesting skill is an opinion. To be honest, I find the ability to assess uncertainty and chance to be just as interesting and rewarding.

I would disagree, in magic it's more about confusing your opponent and making them think you're doing something that you're not or even SUSPECT that you're doing something that you're not in order to make them play differently.

This isn't evident at all in most low-level magic, but it's extremely evident in high-leveled play.


Poker... depends on the variation, 5 card stud is trash. Hold-em on the other hand has a lot of reading, it's just as important as in fighting games, you gotta read hand power based on behavior, and adapt to your opponent's attempts to read.


As far as assessing uncertainty, that's an important component in competent reading.

For one, this is a definition that skews things in favor of your argument. It also doesn't seem to account for games with broken mechanics. After all, a game could have broken or over-centralizing strategies and still select for a variety of criteria with near perfect accuracy.

"More competitive" doesn't mean a perfect game, if it's an otherwise good game, being more competitive is an advantage for tournament play, the better the selection, the greater the advantage.

For another, selecting with 100% accuracy is impossible. We can't know in one specific case if player A pulled off a fantastic read, or hit his opponent because of dumb luck. Similarly, we can't know if Player B properly assessed that he would draw his bomb in MtG, or just got lucky. All competition exists in a sequence of instantaneous events, and for that reason anything with uncertainty in it can be won through luck. This exists for both chance-based uncertainty and uncertainty derived from limited information (fighting games!).

Note that I said "the most competitive game possible", I never suggested that any game is like this in reality.

An example of a perfectly competative game:

Two players attempt to perform this calculation: "1+1"

They are given an unlimited amount of time to perform this, and both can win. The game ends when both select answers.


Such a test perfectly selects for individuals perfectly based on superiority in a tested skillset.


Of course, that's uninteresting as a game, so in order to make it stimulating, we change the game, but in so doing, we automatically induce more randomness, making it less competitive, but still a better game.


So yes, competitive is just one factor.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

You know, maybe one should ask nintendo about making a competive brawl version... Or at least taking tripping out.

I mean, nintendo would make MORE money if you had to buy this, or maybe as an ADD on to brawl. Like a patch. Like a download, which you could just select tripping off. Maybe something like that.

You do realize that even with this being said, if they did make a Brawl competitive version that is, that users and players of that game would still continue to analyze it and find something wrong with that as well? People can never just be satisfied with what they already have, so Nintendo will just completely disregard the entire suggestion.

 

[Ukemi]

However there are other examples of randomness that are just as intrusive and are generally ignored by the community which I would be happy to remove.

If this has been already discussed, sorry about that. I didn't have time to go through the whole thread.

So what does this mean for Peach's forward smash and veggies? DDD's troops? G&W's bacon and hammer? Ivysaur's Razor Leaf? Weegee's side-B? I know these don't seem like the same thing, but when you look at it in an (perhaps over)simplified manner, dashing and the listed moves (and more that I probably missed) are all moves players use to try to beat their opponent that have a random chance of multiple outcomes that may be positive (yes, you can trip to avoid an attack) or negative. Whatever the consensus on this happens to be, should it apply to these moves as well?

And idk why exactly I quoted the quote. It seemed semi-relevant.

 

[adumbrodeus]

If this has been already discussed, sorry about that. I didn't have time to go through the whole thread.

So what does this mean for Peach's forward smash and veggies? DDD's troops? G&W's bacon and hammer? Ivysaur's Razor Leaf? Weegee's side-B? I know these don't seem like the same thing, but when you look at it in an (perhaps over)simplified manner, dashing and the listed moves (and more that I probably missed) are all moves players use to try to beat their opponent that have a random chance of multiple outcomes that may be positive (yes, you can trip to avoid an attack) or negative. Whatever the consensus on this happens to be, should it apply to these moves as well?

And idk why exactly I quoted the quote. It seemed semi-relevant.

I believe that's my quote, so yes, that's EXACTLY what I meant, those are more intrusive and if we must remove randomness from tripping, they deserve to be de-randomized first (I have some proposals on how to do it while preserving balance).


Yet, if you read over the entire thread, there's larger concerns with standardizing hacking of any sort, so it just shouldn't be done.

 

[ranmaru]

You do realize that even with this being said, if they did make a Brawl competitive version that is, that users and players of that game would still continue to analyze it and find something wrong with that as well? People can never just be satisfied with what they already have, so Nintendo will just completely disregard the entire suggestion.

Don't people find things wrong with everything? Everything has both cons and pros. ;D

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

Don't people find things wrong with everything? Everything has both cons and pros. ;D

Yes. Exactly my point. So there's no such thing as "balanced" or "competitive" Brawl. Just play the game as it is, make the best out of it, and play the game for what it is. Make it competitive and have fun. Even if it does have flaws.

 

[napZzz]

Tripping still rarely happens enough to effect a match.

Even if this was approved, it would never happen because not everyone has a hacked wii and you probably still couldn't get enough setups for a tourney that large even with all the people going

/somethingeveryoneelseprobablysaid

 

[MrBlueSky]

Considering the "illegality" of a no trip code, has no one ever heard of Galoob vs. Nintendo? Nintedo sued the makers of the game genie saying that its cheat system was making new content, and therfore breaking copyright. But the court found this not to be true and and no charges were placed. You dont even need an SD card for no trip codes. An Action Replay could do the same thing and there not illegal, as much as Nintendo wants them to be. And I really see no reason why tripping shouldnt be removed. The best reason I heard for keeping tripping is that "its part of the game", which isnt a valid argument since we ban items and planking(sometimes), which are also part of the game. There is no good reason why tripping shouldnt be banned, and there would be many benefits if it was.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Considering the "illegality" of a no trip code, has no one ever heard of Galoob vs. Nintendo? Nintedo sued the makers of the game genie saying that its cheat system was making new content, and therfore breaking copyright. But the court found this not to be true and and no charges were placed. You dont even need an SD card for no trip codes. An Action Replay could do the same thing and there not illegal, as much as Nintendo wants them to be. And I really see no reason why tripping shouldnt be removed. The best reason I heard for keeping tripping is that "its part of the game", which isnt a valid argument since we ban items and planking(sometimes), which are also part of the game. There is no good reason why tripping shouldnt be banned, and there would be many benefits if it was.

...

Somebody desperately needs to read the thread...


If you would've done so at the very least, you would've realized that this was brought up before, but is no longer applicable.

 

[SaveMeJebus]

Considering the "illegality" of a no trip code, has no one ever heard of Galoob vs. Nintendo? Nintedo sued the makers of the game genie saying that its cheat system was making new content, and therfore breaking copyright. But the court found this not to be true and and no charges were placed. You dont even need an SD card for no trip codes. An Action Replay could do the same thing and there not illegal, as much as Nintendo wants them to be. And I really see no reason why tripping shouldnt be removed. The best reason I heard for keeping tripping is that "its part of the game", which isnt a valid argument since we ban items and planking(sometimes), which are also part of the game. There is no good reason why tripping shouldnt be banned, and there would be many benefits if it was.

I think that there is a big difference between pressing a button to take out the items and some hack that is required in order for you to take out tripping. I don't think the problem was ever tripping itself. I think that the problem is the people that take advantage of people that trip. I'm not saying that this should be banned. I'm just saying that maybe it should be frowned upon, like camping. In the vid that they showed, lain could have just let logic get up and continue the match, but instead he went for the grab. in that situation it has more to do with how your opponent will react to the trip that the trip itself. Tripping in my opinion is like crits in pokemon. The pokemon community didn't take out crits from their battle simulators so I don't see why we should take out tripping. Its a part of the game that is probably not going to go away without you having to alter the game itself.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

I think that there is a big difference between pressing a button to take out the items and some hack that is required in order for you to take out tripping. I don't think the problem was ever tripping itself. I think that the problem is the people that take advantage of people that trip. I'm not saying that this should be banned. I'm just saying that maybe it should be frowned upon, like camping. In the vid that they showed, lain could have just let logic get up and continue the match, but instead he went for the grab. in that situation it has more to do with how your opponent will react to the trip that the trip itself. Tripping in my opinion is like crits in pokemon. The pokemon community didn't take out crits from their battle simulators so I don't see why we should take out tripping. Its a part of the game that is probably not going to go away without you having to alter the game itself.

Good thing someone covered for me while I was gone for months.

 

[M15t3R E]

I agree tripping adds nothing to competitive play, but unfortunately the game out of the box will be the game played at these regional/national tournaments. Hacked wii brawl is doomed to stay below the regional level.