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

[dniMretsaM]

Let's say you're playing Bowser and you're very near the end of a match and you are tied w/ the other player. You move into attack (you HAVE to move in since you have no projectile) and your opponent shields, you HAVE to dash to have ANY chance of escaping. If you trip, the other player will attack and then just run away for the small amount of remaining time, thus winning the match because of a trip.

 

[Tenki]

Argument:


Tripping hinders people with BROKEN chain grabs because they might trip during them and let my character free which is fair.


Counter Argument:


First of all, who are you to call a chain grab broken? If you were tricked into getting grabbed or put into a position where you had to get grabbed that's because of your own lack of skill or because your opponent has skill. he or she shouldn't be punished by random chance when they were smart enough to pull ofo the grab on you in the first place


Second, the likely hood of getting grabbed after a trip is higher then your opponent tripping while chan grabbing you.

.For example, let's just say I'm an IceClimbers player and I grab you. I only need to do the chain grab 6 to 10 times before you're in killing range. the likely hood of me tripping during that time frame is minimal.
...At the same time, I don't think my Nana tripped once during any of the chain grabs I pulled off on my opponent.

I don't follow this thread nor have I read it, but

I may not necessarily play IC but aren't most of the chaingrabs done either walking or turning from a standing position?

as long as you're not dashing, you're not really in danger of tripping

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

Let's say you're playing Bowser and you're very near the end of a match and you are tied w/ the other player. You move into attack (you HAVE to move in since you have no projectile) and your opponent shields, you HAVE to dash to have ANY chance of escaping. If you trip, the other player will attack and then just run away for the small amount of remaining time, thus winning the match because of a trip.

Or...

Let's say that you're Bowser, you have no projectiles. But in this course of events, you have ranged attacks, spacing, and also aerials. You can jump and do an aerial. Same concept. You aren't REQUIRED to dash to win the match. There's plenty of alternatives.

 

[GimR]

I don't follow this thread nor have I read it, but

I may not necessarily play IC but aren't most of the chaingrabs done either walking or turning from a standing position?

as long as you're not dashing, you're not really in danger of tripping

Not the Icies' chain grab on light characters and medium characters

Nana does a reverse grab to d-throw which means she has to dash.





PS: I'm sorry but are some of you people really serious? Dashing is key to movement in this game. To say you shouldn't dash when near an opponent because you might trip is ridiculous.

 

[Masmasher@]

There is no such thing as a technique that doesn't have risk/reward, anything can be predicted and countered, and everything limits your options.

Honestly, dashing isn't all that good in the first place.

Yes...
But theres a huge difference between using a attack and getting countered because the opponent predicted it and using a maneuver, getting punished because control is taken out of your hands.
the opponent predicting and countering you is the risk with other moves...not the game itself.

 

[Teh Future]

I dont think there should be a universal rule for banning tripping. Going to every Wii that is set-up to turn off tripping is too much trouble than it is worth imo.

But tournaments that have rules saying no tripping codes are not allowed are ridiculous. There is no reason why someone with an already hacked wii can't have a no tripping code turned on.

 

[<π]

Yes...
But theres a huge difference between using a attack and getting countered because the opponent predicted it and using a maneuver, getting punished because control is taken out of your hands.
the opponent predicting and countering you is the risk with other moves...not the game itself.

NO, that's our point, there isn't any difference.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yes...
But theres a huge difference between using a attack and getting countered because the opponent predicted it and using a maneuver, getting punished because control is taken out of your hands.
the opponent predicting and countering you is the risk with other moves...not the game itself.

Getting countered because of the properties of your move is something inherent to everything in the game, with EVERYTHING, you're measuring risk/reward, it is absolutely fundamental to everything in the game, by choosing a particular maneuver you assume the risks of using said maneuver.


Again, I believe your primary objection is that it's random, and that's fair, who is more skilled should be decided by who predicts their opponent better, not who predicts the RNG better, however, tripping is FAR from the worst offender in this area, 9-hammer deaths and stichface/bomb deaths are far more common then losing a stock directly because of tripping.


In terms of balance, there are far larger concerns, snake's ftilt is probably a larger concern on it's own.


Even if you analyze the two of them together, there are a number of things far worse in the individual categories by a large enough margin for removal to come first.



Not that I'm saying that tripping isn't a stupid gameplay mechanic, the reality is we've simply got larger issues from every angle if we wanna complain.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

It's part of the game and affects both players equally.

Keep it in.

 

[Masmasher@]

NO, that's our point, there isn't any difference.

So your telling me that a peach pulling out a stitchface vs pulling out a regular turnup is the the same as dashing vs tripping? Im sorry but this isnt the case.
Yes I know that moves have risk and reward depending on the opponents reaction to it. but tripping has a few differences.

1. It is a universal move designed to assist in movement. its one of the basics to help you maneuver around the field. a option that completes the basis of the game/competition.
Tripping decays the value of this universal move= hampering competition.

2. It removes control from the user.
This is the eqvilant to someone sitting next to you while you play and unhooking your controller at random spurts in the match. AT NO POINT when peach pulls out a stitchface do you lose control of yourself. you can still counter, predict or dodge it.

3. Undesirable.
The reason why other moves are different is because of the fact that you put yourself in a position to possibly be predicted. Tripping cannot be predicted, cannot be countered, it just happens. intentions mean alot in competitve gamplay. you use the hammer or the turnup or the waddle throw with the same base intention. to hit the opponent.

 

[CRASHiC]

Masher, you're playing the wrong game if you car about intentions. Brawl may be the most random competative fighting game ever, but Melee is 2nd.

Now, for the matter at hand. This will help defense more than it will offense, not really something we want in our metagame right now. When dashing in Brawl, well, don't. It won't gain you an approach at all. Very few characters can safely approach off a dash, you can't cancel your dash into anything except for dash attack, which in most cases is a horrible option and very punishable, dash grab which are generally worse than standing grabs, and jump and not many characters can safely and effectively approach with this. The best thing you can do with a dash in Brawl is runaway since they removed the poor codding that allowed you to cancel your dash into a crouch.

 

[AvaricePanda]

We all agree! That's the kicker. Everybody thought that Cloak of Shadows having a 10% chance to not block spells was stupid, because if you got hit through it to defeated the purpose of the move! But just because we agree on the fact that the problem exists doesn't mean that the solution suggested in this thread is the best one.

The difference is that in WoW, they can patch it out without players illegally editing the game for competition. We can't do that here. The best we can hope for is that Nintendo somehow releases official competition discs to MLG that has randomness removed in most capacities (Veggies aren't random but are stronger than weakest veg, weaker than stitch), GnW has a few hammer options but not the 1 or 9, etc, and of course tripping removed, but the odds of that are slim to none. The best you can do is adapt to the fact that dashing is on rare occasions unsafe.

We can't ask MLG to hack a game. We can't afford to make that a competitive standard and risk the competitive scene taking a huge hit.

valid point says HIIIIIII DON'T IGNORE MEEEEEEEEEEE

Seriously though, we can argue about the mechanics of tripping (and while I agree it's dumb I don't think hacking should be considered and as far as bad gameplay mechanics goes there's plenty worse things like adum said), the point is that you're pushing for a hack to be the competitive enforced RULE for all tournaments. Or if the word hack makes you uncomfortable, alter, modify, whatever — point is, it's illegal from my understanding and is putting the entire smash community at risk.

Tripping is not and never was a serious enough problem for us to risk everything. It sucks, yes, but you can take steps to minimalize it, it's quite rare, and there's worse in the game regardless. You can deal without implementing a hack in the official ruleset.

 

[adumbrodeus]

1. It is a universal move designed to assist in movement. its one of the basics to help you maneuver around the field. a option that completes the basis of the game/competition.
Tripping decays the value of this universal move= hampering competition.

Completely arbitrary, the fact that it's applicable to a universal move is irrelevant.

2. It removes control from the user.
This is the eqvilant to someone sitting next to you while you play and unhooking your controller at random spurts in the match. AT NO POINT when peach pulls out a stitchface do you lose control of yourself. you can still counter, predict or dodge it.

Firstly, stop the random juxtaposition, if we're talking about how something effects one character, remain consistent, otherwise we have no basis for comparison. We're talking about the initiator.

Again, almost any maneuver in the game causes you to completely lose control for a certain period and all mean you lose a degree of control, dashing normally actually gives you LESS control because you have fewer options for a longer period.


So, with a proper comparison, Peach loses control when she pulls a turnip, that's the exchange, just like tripping does.

3. Undesirable.
The reason why other moves are different is because of the fact that you put yourself in a position to possibly be predicted. Tripping cannot be predicted, cannot be countered, it just happens. intentions mean alot in competitve gamplay. you use the hammer or the turnup or the waddle throw with the same base intention. to hit the opponent.

You're missing the point though, the moves have inherently different implications and are dealt with totally different ways depending on what you get. Stitchfaces simply open up more options, other hammers are punishable, other waddles can be beaten.

Regardless, there is always an undesirable results, and you always want the desirable result.

Desirable ----- Undesirable
Stitchie Turnip
Gordo Waddle
Dash Trip
9 hammer 1 Hammer


Just because one has the desirable result as more common means nothing.


And no, intentions are meaningless, what means something is what ACTUALLY OCCURS. You are not responsible for what you were trying to do, only what your character DID, intent is only really useful as a training tool.

 

[Black Marf]

Regardless, there is always an undesirable results, and you always want the desirable result.

Desirable ----- Undesirable
Stitchie Turnip
Gordo Waddle
Dash Trip
9 hammer 1 Hammer


Just because one has the desirable result as more common means nothing.

Unfortunately, this is not how it is usually looked at. There's three different types of random actions that the character can initiate.

One is where the results are all positive. See: Gordo throw, Turnip pull. No matter what happens, the player always gets something good out of it. This gives the player an overall positive feeling, and makes them want to occasionally use the action.

The second is the one where there are positive and negative results, but the positive results are worth it. GDubs hammer is a hybrid of this and the first kind of random chance. We accept that the 1 exists because the 9 does. However, the 1 isn't all bad because you can still harm the opponent with it. A more accurate example of this type of random result is the hammer item. While that item allows catastrophic (in the eyes of casual players) power, you have the possibility of pulling up a dead hammer. Players accept that possibility because the power given seems worth it. Therefore, players choose that option with a positive feeling, as long as they know it can screw them over.

The third is the one where there are positive and negative results, but the uninformed player has no clue why they're there. This is random tripping. Random tripping punishes the player for dashing, and the player has no clue why dashing should warrant being punished. This creates a gut negative reaction in the player, because the design choice is illogical in some form.


So although each of these three options are random and have risk/reward thought processes applied to them, they are each fundamentally different. Although they are all categorized in our heads as random, and thus as having "better" and "worse" results, they are further categorized into these areas. Of these 3, the first 2 are accepted by people, and thus are good design choices. The third is not initially accepted by the majority of players, thus creating a negative feeling for the designed product. Therefore, random tripping is a fundamentally different and worse design choice than the other kinds of random.

It's like calling rectangles and rhombuses the same. Although they are both quadrilaterals, they have further distinctions which separate them.

 

[Masmasher@]

Completely arbitrary, the fact that it's applicable to a universal move is irrelevant.

Yes it is espeically when the move was designed to boost the amount of options that are based on maneuvering/ground based movement.

Firstly, stop the random juxtaposition, if we're talking about how something effects one character, remain consistent, otherwise we have no basis for comparison. We're talking about the initiator.

you guys are the ones using three characters at once to contrast...

Again, almost any maneuver in the game causes you to completely lose control for a certain period and all mean you lose a degree of control, dashing normally actually gives you LESS control because you have fewer options for a longer period.

Are you arguing semantics with this point. Besides dashing gives you options, tripping gives you none. Are your saying that during a turnup pull, not being able to do anything for a milisecond is comparable to falling down and being in the state of sitting down. if so then we are are on a different wavelength.

So, with a proper comparison, Peach loses control when she pulls a turnip, that's the exchange, just like tripping does.

^see above

You're missing the point though, the moves have inherently different implications and are dealt with totally different ways depending on what you get. Stitchfaces simply open up more options, other hammers are punishable, other waddles can be beaten.

Regardless, there is always an undesirable results, and you always want the desirable result.

Desirable ----- Undesirable
Stitchie Turnip
Gordo Waddle
Dash Trip
9 hammer 1 Hammer

Expectation difference between us? I feel that if i used that move then i was intending to hit the opponent. just because i dont get a stitchface doesnt mean that a turnup is undesirable. in my case i dont know what you would call that at the end of the scale.
It would be like if i reached into a basket (i can only reach in once) and got a ten dollar bill. there was 100 dollars in there but that doesnt mean i dont want my ten dollars.

Just because one has the desirable result as more common means nothing.

it does when every result is desired (game and watch is a special case though)

And no, intentions are meaningless, what means something is what ACTUALLY OCCURS. You are not responsible for what you were trying to do, only what your character DID, intent is only really useful as a training tool.

intentions do matter if you werent responsible for what you were trying to do then johns would always be legit lol

training= execution/intent
Training does carry over to competition tripping = inconsistency you character should always do what you command it to do. intentions =actions
of course thats truly straight foward and looking from the best case scenario. this is from a perspective of someone that runs competively so intentions are pretty straight foward to me. you do it... it happens.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Yes it is espeically when the move was designed to boost the amount of options that are based on maneuvering/ground based movement.

Why?

This doesn't really have an applicability in terms of making the tech any more anti-competitive then the other points of randomness, so, again, arbitrary distinction.

you guys are the ones using three characters at once to contrast...

But the comparisons is workable, I'm comparing the effects on the INITIATOR. You're just comparing effects on random people.

Are you arguing semantics with this point. Besides dashing gives you options, tripping gives you none. Are your saying that during a turnup pull, not being able to do anything for a milisecond is comparable to falling down and being in the state of sitting down. if so then we are are on a different wavelength.

No, I'm arguing that you don't really understand the game, you're pissed off because you're getting punished for something you don't feel should be punishable, but it's just part of the natural trade-off for dashing in this game.

Also... millisecond? Really? In case you haven't noticed, it takes a while to execute a turnip, longer then it takes for most characters to roll out of a trip.

Expectation difference between us? I feel that if i used that move then i was intending to hit the opponent. just because i dont get a stitchface doesnt mean that a turnup is undesirable. in my case i dont know what you would call that at the end of the scale.
It would be like if i reached into a basket (i can only reach in once) and got a ten dollar bill. there was 100 dollars in there but that doesnt mean i dont want my ten dollars.
it does when every result is desired (game and watch is a special case though)

Every example is a case of more preferred vs. less preferred, and therefore comparable.

intentions do matter if you werent responsible for what you were trying to do then johns would always be legit lol

What? No, if you're only responsible for what your character actually did, it's the opposite, johns aren't legit.

training= execution/intent
Training does carry over to competition tripping = inconsistency you character should always do what you command it to do. intentions =actions
of course thats truly straight foward and looking from the best case scenario. this is from a perspective of someone that runs competively so intentions are pretty straight foward to me. you do it... it happens.

It's the same as failing at tech skill, your intentions are meaningless unless you actually pull it off, if you chose to use something that has a risk of failing, be prepared to accept the consequences.

Unfortunately, this is not how it is usually looked at. There's three different types of random actions that the character can initiate.

One is where the results are all positive. See: Gordo throw, Turnip pull. No matter what happens, the player always gets something good out of it. This gives the player an overall positive feeling, and makes them want to occasionally use the action.

The second is the one where there are positive and negative results, but the positive results are worth it. GDubs hammer is a hybrid of this and the first kind of random chance. We accept that the 1 exists because the 9 does. However, the 1 isn't all bad because you can still harm the opponent with it. A more accurate example of this type of random result is the hammer item. While that item allows catastrophic (in the eyes of casual players) power, you have the possibility of pulling up a dead hammer. Players accept that possibility because the power given seems worth it. Therefore, players choose that option with a positive feeling, as long as they know it can screw them over.

The third is the one where there are positive and negative results, but the uninformed player has no clue why they're there. This is random tripping. Random tripping punishes the player for dashing, and the player has no clue why dashing should warrant being punished. This creates a gut negative reaction in the player, because the design choice is illogical in some form.


So although each of these three options are random and have risk/reward thought processes applied to them, they are each fundamentally different. Although they are all categorized in our heads as random, and thus as having "better" and "worse" results, they are further categorized into these areas. Of these 3, the first 2 are accepted by people, and thus are good design choices. The third is not initially accepted by the majority of players, thus creating a negative feeling for the designed product. Therefore, random tripping is a fundamentally different and worse design choice than the other kinds of random.

It's like calling rectangles and rhombuses the same. Although they are both quadrilaterals, they have further distinctions which separate them.

However, ultimately the fact is, that's a just a psychological difference, there's a more preferred result compared to a less preferred result. Having a standard as an "ok result" in terms of competitiveness only makes people inherently feel better about, it does not change the nature of the move.

Ultimately, all random is bad, competitively speaking, but none is intrusive enough to be officially removed.

 

[Crow!]

I have an idea. Let's make a game where what happens is completely nondeterministic! Like, you shoot a tiny, electrically charged bullet through two slits in the wall, and the game makes it impossible to know where the bullet will wind up afterward, or even which of the holes the bullet went through, even if you knew exactly how the bullet was shot!

Oh, wait, that game exists. That game is called real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

[Jack Kieser]

...aaaaand, Crow! wins another thread with science. :D

 

[adumbrodeus]

Real life is stupid, why would we want our games to imitate real life?

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

Real life is stupid, why would we want our games to imitate real life?

For.. Realism? Realisticness?

Possibly empathy?

 

[Palpi]

I think people that want tripping removed and are willing to hack Wii's to do so don't understand that other people that are arguing against them want tripping banned as well. Who wouldn't? But to ban tripping, you must hack all Wiis and since brawl is currently on the MLG circuit, such an action could be detrimental to the game competitiveness.

I am sure if there was a button in brawl that said "Turn Off Tripping" Adumbrodeus would definitely turn it off, but he is saying that the problem is too miniscule to take the measures to remove it.

 

[fkacyan]

I have an idea. Let's make a game where what happens is completely nondeterministic! Like, you shoot a tiny, electrically charged bullet through two slits in the wall, and the game makes it impossible to know where the bullet will wind up afterward, or even which of the holes the bullet went through, even if you knew exactly how the bullet was shot!

Oh, wait, that game exists. That game is called real life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

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

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

I think people that want tripping removed and are willing to hack Wii's to do so don't understand that other people that are arguing against them want tripping banned as well. Who wouldn't? But to ban tripping, you must hack all Wiis and since brawl is currently on the MLG circuit, such an action could be detrimental to the game competitiveness.

I am sure if there was a button in brawl that said "Turn Off Tripping" Adumbrodeus would definitely turn it off, but he is saying that the problem is too miniscule to take the measures to remove it.

That's exactly where I stand, too. It's just the problem that the option is not in the game.

 

[Black Marf]

However, ultimately the fact is, that's a just a psychological difference, there's a more preferred result compared to a less preferred result. Having a standard as an "ok result" in terms of competitiveness only makes people inherently feel better about, it does not change the nature of the move.

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.

Ultimately, all random is bad, competitively speaking, but none is intrusive enough to be officially removed.

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.

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

This statement is not completely supported by modern science. It's just as likely that God loves his dice.

 

[Masmasher@]

Why?

This doesn't really have an applicability in terms of making the tech any more anti-competitive then the other points of randomness, so, again, arbitrary distinction.

The maneuver is a complete contradiction it acts against itself. the other random actions of those few characters dont. it hampers gameplay

But the comparisons is workable, I'm comparing the effects on the INITIATOR. You're just comparing effects on random people.

point taken

No, I'm arguing that you don't really understand the game, you're pissed off because you're getting punished for something you don't feel should be punishable, but it's just part of the natural trade-off for dashing in this game.

How can i not understand tripping? its pretty straight foward. Competitvely it has no place in any fighting game its not natural for a player to lose control for using their control to move. are we even talking bout the same thing anymore

Also... millisecond? Really? In case you haven't noticed, it takes a while to execute a turnip, longer then it takes for most characters to roll out of a trip.

aftermath of the turnip gives you options to go offensively
aftermath of the trip is punishment, roll into tech chase into punish.

Every example is a case of more preferred vs. less preferred, and therefore comparable.

I guess i would look at the the random b attacks on that scale
tripping would be more of a blatent no. going back to the basket example if i pulled out a big wad of dog **** instead of the ten dollars or the 100 then i wouldnt keep it.

What? No, if you're only responsible for what your character actually did, it's the opposite, johns aren't legit.

You said you arent responisble for what you do. i took that as saying if you make a mistake such as tech skill messing up that you arent responsible. therefore its a john (i hate that word)

It's the same as failing at tech skill, your intentions are meaningless unless you actually pull it off, if you chose to use something that has a risk of failing, be prepared to accept the consequences.

Intentions lead into pulling the move off. if nobody ever meant to do anything then you wouldnt see any great performances anywhere. agree to disagree.

However, ultimately the fact is, that's a just a psychological difference, there's a more preferred result compared to a less preferred result. Having a standard as an "ok result" in terms of competitiveness only makes people inherently feel better about, it does not change the nature of the move.

Ultimately, all random is bad, competitively speaking, but none is intrusive enough to be officially removed.

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.

 

[Miamisportsfan45]

We're using science now in a tripping thread? To win the thread and defend our arguments? Confusing, but nice.

 

[Magical_Trevor]

Ok, I'm pretty sure they added tripping to nail the noobs that wave dashed in melee. Take tripping away, and all of a sudden you have to deal arse hats wave dashing like noobs, and reducing the game to "Lets see who can do a button combination the fastest!" People need to quit getting butt hurt over tripping. If you don't like it, play a character that doesn't dash a lot, as touched upon in the original post. Don't want to do that? Well then seems to me you don't hate tripping enough to actually do something about it for yourself.

 

[fkacyan]

This statement is not completely supported by modern science. It's just as likely that God loves his dice.

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I can't even begin to fathom how to reply to it. I'll go with the simplest one.

Pretty much everything else we've observed has operated based on concrete laws, and the only time we attribute them to luck, randomness, or god is when we don't understand the mechanics of them. See: Maggots, milk spoiling.

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.

I call bull****. Name one game that relies on randomness to function as a competitive game that wouldn't be more skill-based without it. Casino games don't count for this.

 

[Black Marf]

There are so many things wrong with this statement that I can't even begin to fathom how to reply to it. I'll go with the simplest one.

Pretty much everything else we've observed has operated based on concrete laws, and the only time we attribute them to luck, randomness, or god is when we don't understand the mechanics of them. See: Maggots, milk spoiling.

... Except for thermodynamics/quantum? The reason that everything we've observed is concrete is because most of what we've observed throughout history is macroscopic. Macroscopically, luck and chance approach concrete and predictable behavior. We cannot know if a single flipped coin will be heads or tails, but if you flip a trillion coins the 50% will be heads and 50% will be tails. Physics functions differently on a microscopic as apposed to a macroscopic level.

So while it's true that MAYBE there's a model that we don't understand yet, it's also possible that believing in concrete undeniable determinism was the 19th century's form of milk spoiling. That's not bull****, that's the revolutionary idea that Physics has suggested in the last century.

I call bull****. Name one game that relies on randomness to function as a competitive game that wouldn't be more skill-based without it. Casino games don't count for this.

Magic the Gathering. Most of deck building and playing is working through random chance and being able to predict what your opponent has. Believe it or not, there is skill in dealing with random chance. It's just different than dealing with certainties.

 

[fkacyan]

... Except for thermodynamics/quantum? The reason that everything we've observed is concrete is because most of what we've observed throughout history is macroscopic. Macroscopically, luck and chance approach concrete and predictable behavior. We cannot know if a single flipped coin will be heads or tails, but if you flip a trillion coins the 50% will be heads and 50% will be tails. Physics functions differently on a microscopic as apposed to a macroscopic level.

So while it's true that MAYBE there's a model that we don't understand yet, it's also possible that believing in concrete undeniable determinism was the 19th century's form of milk spoiling. That's not bull****, that's the revolutionary idea that Physics has suggested in the last century.

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.

Magic the Gathering. Most of deck building and playing is working through random chance and being able to predict what your opponent has. Believe it or not, there is skill in dealing with random chance. It's just different than dealing with certainties.

I would argue that skill in M:TG is very similar to skill in Poker, which is making the best of what you're given. You could be the best Magic player in the world, and if your deck repeatedly screws you by giving you too much mana / little to no mana, you could lose to far less-skilled players. I'm not saying that there is a way, or that there should be a way, to remove the RNG from Magic, because that's part of the allure of that type of game, but I think you're going way out on a limb to suggest that it's a good competitive example when compared to something that is entirely skill-based.

 

[<π]

magic... That game isn't competitive.

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

 

[Black Marf]

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.

Back that up with some facts. As of now, deterministic physics is far from proven or a foregone conclusion.

I would argue that skill in M:TG is very similar to skill in Poker, which is making the best of what you're given. You could be the best Magic player in the world, and if your deck repeatedly screws you by giving you too much mana / little to no mana, you could lose to far less-skilled players. I'm not saying that there is a way, or that there should be a way, to remove the RNG from Magic, because that's part of the allure of that type of game, but I think you're going way out on a limb to suggest that it's a good competitive example when compared to something that is entirely skill-based.

Dealing with probability and uncertainty is a skill, and one that's arguably more difficult than dealing with certainties. It's impossible to make a good competitive game that deals with probability without having the off-chance that the RNG will completely screw the player over.

magic... That game isn't competitive.

At this point I'm arguing on a fighting game forum that games with random chance are competitive and skill based, which is like walking into another fighting game forum and talking about the merits of Brawl.

 

[fkacyan]

Dealing with probability and uncertainty is a skill, and one that's arguably more difficult than dealing with certainties. It's impossible to make a good competitive game that deals with probability without having the off-chance that the RNG will completely screw the player over.

Brawl is dealing with certainties? Whoa there, it's all about reading the other players' actions. There aren't many certainties, which is actually unique about Brawl. In many other games it's mindgames into one hit which starts a large combo, but Brawl is much slower-paced and thus much more though and read based. Very little certainty at the top of the metagame, comparatively speaking.

As for 'dealing with probability' being a skill, yes, if somebody randomly has a rock placed on their track that pops up just barely within reaction time, dealing with that is certainly a skill, but when you want to find out who is the best at something random factors make it very difficult to tell who is actually better, because you don't know if the RNG wasn't the main cause of their win or loss.

 

[<π]

I was being sarcastic.

Random chance is and has been excepted in millions of games. even in hockey and football you flip a coin to see who gets the ball first. Adapting to random stuff is and has always been a huge part of the smash series.

It'd be different if the argument was "I don't like tripping I would like it out." fine, thats your opinion I can't argue with that. But the point people are calling random johns when so much of this game already is random.

 

[Jack Kieser]

I call bull****. Name one game that relies on randomness to function as a competitive game that wouldn't be more skill-based without it. Casino games don't count for this.

Now, wait just a second. In all fairness, this is a pretty disingenuous question. It can only be answered one way, and it's designed, by its very nature, to trick people into thinking that randomness is anti-competitive.

Your question starts with the assertion that randomness is bad, and that the inclusion of randomness is a bad thing. It already rejects the assertion that dealing with random factors isn't a competitive skill, which is purely conjecture at best, and opinion at worst.

To ask if there are any games that wouldn't be more skill-based without an PRNG is asserting that dealing with random factors isn't a skill to test for, which (obviously) some people disagree with. Honestly, I don't even think the people in this thread arguing their points know how they really feel about it; they'd call tripping "random" but a 9-kill from G-dubs "good prediction".

The PRNG decided both events!

The fact of the matter is that some people think that strategy and prediction are the only things that are competitively valid to test for; that's not an incorrect assertion, but it is by no means quantitatively more valid than the assertion that adapting to changing scenarios is a quantifiably testable skill, and that it enhances competition to test for it.

So, in short... bad question is bad.

 

[Black Marf]

Brawl is dealing with certainties? Whoa there, it's all about reading the other players' actions. There aren't many certainties, which is actually unique about Brawl. In many other games it's mindgames into one hit which starts a large combo, but Brawl is much slower-paced and thus much more though and read based. Very little certainty at the top of the metagame, comparatively speaking.

I know this. However, we both know the kind of uncertainties I meant. I'm not talking about the uncertainty of whether or not you read your opponent correctly, I'm talking about the uncertainty of whether or not you're gonna have that Blightning in your hand when you need it. They're two different phenomena, even though they're both rooted in the player's ignorance. Brawl is dealing with certainties in the way MtG is not. You will always have all your moves available to you, and your moves will always do the same thing (with some exceptions which have been noted in this thread). That is a level of certainty that exists in fighting games which does not exist in games like MtG.

As for 'dealing with probability' being a skill, yes, if somebody randomly has a rock placed on their track that pops up just barely within reaction time, dealing with that is certainly a skill, but when you want to find out who is the best at something random factors make it very difficult to tell who is actually better, because you don't know if the RNG wasn't the main cause of their win or loss.

To a certain extent this is true. Similarly, you could be screwed over by a random trip or a random 9 in Brawl. To be realistic though, there's a lot of people that make money off the fact that there is a definite amount of skill in MtG, and it's related to dealing with the fact that you're not certain what your options are going to be.

I was being sarcastic.

D'oh.

Also, <3 Jack.

 

[fkacyan]

Now, wait just a second. In all fairness, this is a pretty disingenuous question. It can only be answered one way, and it's designed, by its very nature, to trick people into thinking that randomness is anti-competitive.

It's not a trick. Randomness is, by definition, anti-competitive, unless of course you want to test for who the RNG favors. The entire premise of the thread is based upon this definition, so if it's invalid then there's no reason to even continue posting here.

Your question starts with the assertion that randomness is bad, and that the inclusion of randomness is a bad thing. It already rejects the assertion that dealing with random factors isn't a competitive skill, which is purely conjecture at best, and opinion at worst.

I didn't say it wasn't a skill. But it's not a skill we want to test for when deciding who is the best at Smash.

To ask if there are any games that wouldn't be more skill-based without an PRNG is asserting that dealing with random factors isn't a skill to test for, which (obviously) some people disagree with. Honestly, I don't even think the people in this thread arguing their points know how they really feel about it; they'd call tripping "random" but a 9-kill from G-dubs "good prediction".

The PRNG decided both events!

I'd say both are pretty stupid, actually. And of course people are allowed to disagree, but you'll rarely, if ever, find an example of an RNG-less game being won by the lesser-skilled player (Chess is a good example of this), but there are plenty of examples where somebody has gotten lucky and won even though they're not as skilled at the actual aspects of the game.

The fact of the matter is that some people think that strategy and prediction are the only things that are competitively valid to test for; that's not an incorrect assertion, but it is by no means quantitatively more valid than the assertion that adapting to changing scenarios is a quantifiably testable skill, and that it enhances competition to test for it.

Changing scenarios and randomness are not the same thing.

So, in short... bad question is bad.

I admit that the point of the question was to force a situation in which it was impossible to answer properly against it. Guilty as charged. :3

 

[Jack Kieser]

It's not a trick. Randomness is, by definition, anti-competitive, unless of course you want to test for who the RNG favors. The entire premise of the thread is based upon this definition, so if it's invalid then there's no reason to even continue posting here.

See, competition's definition doesn't have the word "randomness" in it at all; "by definition", competition doesn't care whether the contest has random chance in it at all. If there are two people, and one wants to gain something over the other (cash pot, respect, women, land, a trophy, whatever), it is competitive.

I don't know where people get this idea that the meaning of "competition" cares about random factors...

I didn't say it wasn't a skill. But it's not a skill we want to test for when deciding who is the best at Smash.

"We"? Who is "we"? I didn't agree to that. Obviously, people in this thread, and people in tournaments, don't agree. There is no section of the BBR Recommended Ruleset that says anything about what we test for in a tournament.

To the extent of my knowledge, we test for who will pop up as "1st" on the results screen.

I'd say both are pretty stupid, actually. And of course people are allowed to disagree, but you'll rarely, if ever, find an example of an RNG-less game being won by the lesser-skilled player (Chess is a good example of this), but there are plenty of examples where somebody has gotten lucky and won even though they're not as skilled at the actual aspects of the game.

I agree. Both events are dumb. Ish. I'll admit, I see someone get a 9-kill, and I get excited.

That being said, I also agree that games with less or no random elements make it easier to test for skill... but randomness doesn't make it impossible or anything. It's not like every time a trip happens, the lesser skilled player wins. If anything, the people playing Chess have it too easy! A Smasher has to always be on his guard, and doesn't just plan for his own moves and his opponents moves, but also the game's moves; a Smasher has to be more attentive and have better reaction than even a SF player because a truly great Smasher (or at least, Brawler) expects even the unexpected.

Changing scenarios and randomness are not the same thing.

Well, then I should have been more clear. Sorry about that.

I admit that the point of the question was to force a situation in which it was impossible to answer properly against it. Guilty as charged. :3

It's cool.

 

[Black Marf]

I admit that the point of the question was to force a situation in which it was impossible to answer properly against it. Guilty as charged. :3

Unfalsifiable statements are bad traps (unacceptable claims, too). Especially when they can be countered by popular opinion (I'm not sure how many people can actually claim that Poker and MtG are uncompetitive when they wish they were as good as the Pros at those games. That mostly applies to Poker, but still).

 

[fkacyan]

Unfalsifiable statements are bad traps (unacceptable claims, too). Especially when they can be countered by popular opinion (I'm not sure how many people can actually claim that Poker and MtG are uncompetitive when they wish they were as good as the Pros at those games. That mostly applies to Poker, but still).

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