Wobbling Discussion Revisited #Evo2kprep

[The Irish Mafia]

I think you missed the point of my post
in fact all of you did so i'm gonna post this in bold and allcaps:
WHAT CRITERIA DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD DECIDE TO BAN THINGS BY?
MEANING, WHAT KIND OF GAME OF MELEE DO YOU WANT TO PLAY COMPETITIVELY? CONSIDERING OUR CURRENT SET OF ARBITRARY RULES PRODUCED A COMPETITIVELY VIABLE VERSION OF MELEE, HOW COMFORTABLE ARE YOU WITH CHANGING IT? DO YOU THINK WOBBLING NECESSITATES A CHANGE?Thoughts etc.

 

[Wretched]

Stalling - to perform any action which inherently and intentionally takes an (arbitrary) unnecessary amount of time in-between conflicts, or would prevent the opponent from initiating conflict.

In the case of the freeze glitch, if the opoonent doesn't SDI to ungrabbable places and the other person doesn't hit you to ridiculous percents, I don't see how FGing would be stalling. If you get a successful freeze glitch, it is a promised KO, just like wobbling, and if the ICs player wanted, they could get you to 999 with the freeze glitch OR wobbling, in which case that'd be stalling.

The reason it is banned is it is a completely different mechanic than wobbling. When you freeze glitch, the actual game can freeze. I've had the game freeze while freeze glitching on certain stages. When you freeze glitch, the opponent can make the game unendable/make it end on time, too. That's why it's banned, too. If the opponent isn't a **** who SDIs up, I'd vouch for it being legal honestly.

EDIT: Something should be banned if it is currently over-centralizing and dictating the flow of the metagame heavily, or if it creates obscure scenarios that would make competitive play less competitive. We ban items because they make the game less competitive. Metaknight was banned in brawl because it fit this criteria.

So, when banning something, I guess just ask yourself "is this influencing the metagame enough to be banned? Would the game be a better competitive environment with this tactic/character gone? Does this character/technique create scenarios where the normal competitive environment becomes perverse?"

Wobbling says no to all of these questions. Wobbling is not overcentralizing, the game would not be significantly better without it, and it CAN create scenarios where the competitive environment gets ****ed up, like stalling, but we have an effective, arbitrary ban against stalling that is rarely needed to be brought up or enforced. Freeze glitching is banned because the last question, and maybe the second question, identify the freeze glitch.

The whole freeze glitch thing is much more arbitrary though, because if it was legal, I don't know that too many games would end with ICs being unable to get a grab after freeze glitching. I guess it is the possibility of SDI that makes it illegal...?

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Reading comprehension has reached a critical low; abort topic.

 

[Wretched]

Isn't there a rule against fishing for likes or something?

There should be.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I'm not fishing for likes lol, just being blunt and trying to make it light-hearted

I already explained how the whole "SDI'ing freeze glitch" situation would never come up in an actual game, and no one said that just the act of initiating the freeze glitch is stalling - so I don't know why you felt the need to mention the first thing and rebut the second unless you didn't read the previous posts properly.

 

[GimR]

Okay watch this, Wobbles grabs Taj at 100% and Taj breaks out before he can start the Wobble

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g90iHjEA3BY&feature=player_detailpage#t=2372s
Edit: looks like youtube isn't linking to the time stamp, I think it's 39 minutes 40 seconds in

 

[LLDL]

That just looks like wobbles messed up. Nana was too far away and was already committed to a grab animation

 

[Wretched]

I'm not fishing for likes lol, just being blunt and trying to make it light-hearted

I already explained how the whole "SDI'ing freeze glitch" situation would never come up in an actual game, and no one said that just the act of initiating the freeze glitch is stalling - so I don't know why you felt the need to mention the first thing and rebut the second unless you didn't read the previous posts properly.

I was just responding to Mafia lol. And I never said the initiation in the first place was the stalling, but rather a stalling situation can occur from either party during either wobbling or freeze glitching. The entire point was to distinguish between the freeze glitch, which can lead to an unavoidable timeout, and wobbling, which will not lead to an unavoidable timeout so long as the player chooses not to attempt to stall. Regardless, who made you ring leader of the thread? I can say whatever I want in relation to what has already been said if I feel that nobody has summed it up, which I did. No need to be condescending just because I touch on some points that've already been touched.

AND YES. IT WOULD COME UP IN GAMES. I can't find this post you made about why it would never happen. However, if I freeze glitch myself in training mode and then get hit 2-3 times, I can easily DI out of gab range with SDI. I just did it. Just now. I am sitting in front of my wii, in training mode, and I freeze glitched myself on the ground, then I had someone hit me 3 times. I SDI'd up and I couldn't be grabbed. So yes. It would come up in games. It isn't conditional (cept for freeze glitch) and it is easy to do, and any player could learn to consistently SDI up within a matter of minutes of practicing while frozen and getting hit.

I would do it as long as I had a stock lead...

He is saying he'd SDI up if he had the stock lead and he could. SDIing while you're taking damage from ICs is easy, and within a couple of hits from the pair, you can SDI out of grab range. So the stalling thing is a huge possibility and we could probably see it in any game where a freeze glitch is initiated. That's why it's banned, and that' the point I was touching on.

And if you had a stock lead, the IC player wouldn't freeze glitch you because that'd be like forfeiting lol

Here you even claim that if someone initiated the freeze glitch on someone with a stock lead, it'd be like forfeiting... Why is that? Because you can SDI out of grab range? I thought that'd never happen in real games?

to limit it's broken uses while keeping its legitimate uses.

So, what are the broken uses and legitimate uses of freeze glitch? Are you claiming that someone CAN SDI out of it or they CAN be frozen and make the game end in time, without either player being able to do anything ex post facto? I thought it'd never occur in a real game, so it should be legal?

 

[Bones0]

I think his point was that an ICs player would be dumb to freeze glitch someone when they are down a stock because they could SDI and win. It doesn't change the fact that if the IC player ever accidentally uses Ice Blocks or Blizzard that no matter who is winning the game cannot continue, which is the major thing (also Mafi said Nana sometimes uthrows the player out of range before the freeze, so that is also a problem). Debating freeze glitch is dumb in the first place because I don't think there are even any IC players who think it should be legal, especially with wobbling legal.

 

[Jockmaster]

We aren't really debating FG being legal, just the relationship between its illegality and wobbling's

 

[Zankoku]

But if we don't have it specifically written in the rules that you can't use Masterhand, yet we ban him anyway, I'm pretty sure we could theoretically let the freeze glitch slide under some subjective, arbitrary limitations if we were so inclined.

Theoretically getting a "stock lead" with Master Hand would invariably lead to the Master Hand player "stalling" since he can't actually be KO'd. Clearly, the no stalling rule fixes everything!

 

[RockinRudy]

Screw it I wobble when I get the chance.​

It's fair.​

Ice Climbers are boss i'm glad I use them now.​

I will do it whenever I get the chance.​

My mission is accomplished when the other player rages.​

#letwobbleswobble.​

​

​

Single entry fee into EVO- $10​

Seeing scrub foxes Shine spike - Meh​

Seeing Falco Spam Lasers - Meh​

Captain Falcon knee - SDFSDFSDFDS​

Seeing Wobbles wobble game 1 - Priceless​

 

[GimR]

That just looks like wobbles messed up. Nana was too far away and was already committed to a grab animation

I gotchu on her being too far away, but almost every time Ice Climbers land a grab nana also has to commit to the grab animation

 

[Construct]

edit: disregard

 

[Sox]

Let 'em Work. Let 'em Live.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

ok so the point of my initial post was so we wouldn't have to discuss the freeze glitch and it's legality. It's a horrible, ludicrous abomination born of this game, and as a community I'm happy we choose to ban it. Still, we need to remember WHY we banned it in the first place.
For the last time, when viewing the criteria by which we ban the freeze glitch, do you think wobbling should be banned? I hope the stark contrast between a glitch and an exploit shows here; maybe more people will understand how to deal with wobbling once they consider it in this context.

 

[Wretched]

Let me answer your question with something I already said:
"So, when banning something, I guess just ask yourself "is this influencing the metagame enough to be banned? Would the game be a better competitive environment with this tactic/character gone? Does this character/technique create scenarios where the normal competitive environment becomes perverse?"

Wobbling says no to all of these questions. Wobbling is not overcentralizing, the game would not be significantly better without it, and it CAN create scenarios where the competitive environment gets ****ed up, like stalling, but we have an effective, arbitrary ban against stalling that is rarely needed to be brought up or enforced. Freeze glitching is banned because the last question, and maybe the second question, identify the freeze glitch."

So, in relation to your question, the criteria is the first paragraph, and the second paragraph is why freeze glitch should be banned and wobbling should not.

 

[Nintendude]

Okay watch this, Wobbles grabs Taj at 100% and Taj breaks out before he can start the Wobble

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g90iHjEA3BY&feature=player_detailpage#t=2372s
Edit: looks like youtube isn't linking to the time stamp, I think it's 39 minutes 40 seconds in

What happened here was both ICs used grab, but during the grab Nana ended up outside of the 'magic box' upon which she is considered to be synced to Popo. So since she was desynced Taj was able to break out before Wobbles could initiate the infinite.

btw, reposting this since nobody seems to have the balls to respond:

Before TOs can ban wobbling they have to come up with a proper definition. This isn't as trivial an issue as it seems. Let's see what you guys can come up with and I'll play devil's advocate.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

Wretched, I agree with and appreciate your post(s). Sorry for not responding earlier.

What happened here was both ICs used grab, but during the grab Nana ended up outside of the 'magic box' upon which she is considered to be synced to Popo. So since she was desynced Taj was able to break out before Wobbles could initiate the infinite.

btw, reposting this since nobody seems to have the balls to respond:

Good question. I define wobbling as...
When IC's deal +40% to the opponent while still holding the opponent.
This is an experimental definition. I say 40% for two reasons:
1) I believe it's outside the range of damage the IC's can deal with pummels and nana's smashes without insinuating an unbreakable grab state.
2) I believe 40% is a base percent of competitive melee. It's when crouch canceling ends, and when the standard bread and butter ends with most of the cast. We can assume roughly 40% will be dealt from a competent player once they've initiated.

I only know wobbling as an effective exploit in two terms: Stalling and damage. We could limit it by time, but the exploit deals damage over time, so it's easier to define it by damage. That limits the two major threats in my eyes that wobbling would pose to the current competitive metagame, as it requires between 2 and 3 grabs in order to get a kill, which is standard for most high tier characters.
It also allows the IC player to dthrow dair regrab and continue breif wobbling, but that allows the victim to attempt escape. If they don't, it's on them. Anyway, advocate away.

 

[King Funk]

Don't ban it.

 

[trash?]

Look how top tier ice climbers is. I am amazed at the top tierness of ice climbers. There is so much to love about how top tier ice climbers i-- no wait he barely scraped past C tier I forgot lmao

It's shameful that people are substituting learning how to get around wobbling with banning it, especially when people will tell you time and time again that there's ways to deal with it. Is it polarizing? Damned right it is, but so is every other high-tier character in the game (CGs against a healthy chunk of the cast as shiek, fox not having a single "bad" MU in the game when he's not on FD, jigglypuff being jigglypuff etcetc). And to be clear: that's a damned legitimate comparison, because I don't really care how much you think wobbling is the next spawn of the devil himself, there are still characters better, in ludicrous ways, than Ice Climbers.

 

[GimR]

2) I believe 40% is a base percent of competitive melee. It's when crouch canceling ends, /quote]

I've been crouch canceled waayyyy after 40% before

 

[Bones0]

Not to nit pick, but CCing never ends. Whether your get knocked over while CCing is largely dependent on the move and character, not so much their %. You can CC most characters jabs without falling over well into triple digits.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

I've been crouch canceled waayyyy after 40% before

That's assuming they're not doing a move, or any of the other random things are happening that affect crouch canceling. The point is it's a landmark in most high tier character's combo tree.

 

[Nintendude]

Wretched, I agree with and appreciate your post(s). Sorry for not responding earlier.

Good question. I define wobbling as...
When IC's deal +40% to the opponent while still holding the opponent.
This is an experimental definition. I say 40% for two reasons:
1) I believe it's outside the range of damage the IC's can deal with pummels and nana's smashes without insinuating an unbreakable grab state.
2) I believe 40% is a base percent of competitive melee. It's when crouch canceling ends, and when the standard bread and butter ends with most of the cast. We can assume roughly 40% will be dealt from a competent player once they've initiated.

I only know wobbling as an effective exploit in two terms: Stalling and damage. We could limit it by time, but the exploit deals damage over time, so it's easier to define it by damage. That limits the two major threats in my eyes that wobbling would pose to the current competitive metagame, as it requires between 2 and 3 grabs in order to get a kill, which is standard for most high tier characters.
It also allows the IC player to dthrow dair regrab and continue breif wobbling, but that allows the victim to attempt escape. If they don't, it's on them. Anyway, advocate away.

That actually kind of works at least as a possible way to define it. The biggest issue with it is that it is difficult to enforce because there can be ambiguous situations, such as landing a grab while Nana is doing another move (like blizzard). Also, there can be confusion with when a grab actually ended if the last hit is a smash.

 

[Hax]

I don't understand how Wobbling, a technique that does not save Ice Climbers from being a bad character and only degenerates their grab game, was ever banned and is still having its ban discussed. yet the thought of banning Planking with the lead, a stalling technique that catapults two top tiers even farther ahead of the rest of the cast and degenerates the game by making touching the ground obsolete, is shot down immediately.

unban Wobbling.

 

[ph00tbag]

>Wobbling ban discussion in 2013.

 

[Juggleguy]

That actually kind of works at least as a possible way to define it. The biggest issue with it is that it is difficult to enforce because there can be ambiguous situations, such as landing a grab while Nana is doing another move (like blizzard). Also, there can be confusion with when a grab actually ended if the last hit is a smash.

Any continuous, standing Ice Climbers grab combo that does not involve any throws.

 

[Bones0]

Any continuous, standing Ice Climbers grab combo that does not involve any throws.

You can't fsmash people out of a grab?

 

[Juggleguy]

God damnit lol.

Any continuous, standing Ice Climbers grab combo that does not involve throws and stalls the game at the discretion of the TO.

NOW WHAT

 

[Bones0]

So if the TO isn't looking and the match isn't recorded, you can wobble? >.>

 

[Juggleguy]

So if the TO isn't looking and there are no witnesses, you can kick your opponent's controller out of their hands?

I don't really see the difference between the two. It's impossible to cover everything, and at some point you have to draw the line on how much you can write about in a ruleset and/or code of conduct.

 

[Nintendude]

God damnit lol.

Any continuous, standing Ice Climbers grab combo that does not involve throws and stalls the game at the discretion of the TO.

NOW WHAT

That's really vague. What constitutes a standing ICs grab combo? I guess that part isn't really relevant though. You are defining it as a non-throwing combo that stalls the game. I'm assuming that by stalling you mean just racking up damage to stupidly high percents.

 

[Bones0]

So if the TO isn't looking and there are no witnesses, you can kick your opponent's controller out of their hands?

I don't really see the difference between the two. It's impossible to cover everything, and at some point you have to draw the line on how much you can write about in a ruleset and/or code of conduct.

Physically interfering with other players is against the rules, and is not up to the TO's discretion. If you leave something up to the TO's discretion, it has to be a judgement that can be made in between games or something. You can't just leave what constitutes stalling or wobbling up to a TO because he can't accurately make that judgement for every setup at all times. That's why we lay out what specifically constitutes stalling (rising pound off stage, Peach bombing at the bottom of a stage). If what is considered a wobble is left up to the TO's discretion, the TO could DQ one IC player for "wobbling" and let it slide with another player just based on how it looks or whether their opponent decided to complain after the match.

And I agree that you can only write so much in a ruleset, but the whole point of the people demanding a solid definition for wobbling is that there is no real definition of wobbling. It just refers to a similar pattern of moves used during an IC's grab. There are tons of mixups and variations and timings that you can't possibly consider them all the same thing. It'd be like banning Falco's pillar combo. Well what constitutes a pillar combo? We could try to define it, but we'd need a million exceptions and clarifications just to cover all the possibilities. We know a pillar combo or wobble when we see one, but sometimes there are things that are on the edge where some people would go ahead and consider them a pillar combo or wobble even if it doesn't technically combo or even if the opponent could have mashed out.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

That actually kind of works at least as a possible way to define it. The biggest issue with it is that it is difficult to enforce because there can be ambiguous situations, such as landing a grab while Nana is doing another move (like blizzard). Also, there can be confusion with when a grab actually ended if the last hit is a smash.

If the last hit is a smash and the opponent is still grabbed, then it will decay by ~50%. . . If I'm not mistaken. That's why dthrow dsmash chaingrab does like 7 per rep, right?
I thought for a while about how this would be enforced, and I really don't have a good way. I guess it'd be the same system we've done and rely on hearsay.
Better yet, once someone feels they have been the victim of unfair wobbling, they can call for a referee to observe the rest of the set. The referee must be appointed by the TO, thus making the referee's calls the TO's discretion.

 

[Senortesta]

As long as they aren't doing it past like 180% then sure let them wobble. It can be hard enough for ices to get a grab if you outcamp them and if you ban wobbling there are still other infinites that will still take place. Also not enough people play Ices for them to even be a major tournament threat at the local level and a minor threat at the national level compared to people like hbox mango pp and m2k.

 

[AlanHaTe]

this reminds me of "MK being legal or banned" in Brawl lol

 

[ph00tbag]

Why not just define Wobbling as any combination of attacks that keeps one's opponent in grabstun* indefinitely?

*for the sake of having a name for it, let's just have this refer to a grabbed state that cannot be broken. Actually, I'm troubled that I've never seen a term for this previously. Has it existed and I just haven't seen it?

 

[-ACE-]

This thread is such a joke lol

peace out

 

[lordvaati]

I don't understand how Wobbling, a technique that does not save Ice Climbers from being a bad character and only degenerates their grab game, was ever banned and is still having its ban discussed. yet the thought of banning Planking with the lead, a stalling technique that catapults two top tiers even farther ahead of the rest of the cast and degenerates the game by making touching the ground obsolete, is shot down immediately.

unban Wobbling.

It's more a softban really, since the SBR never officially banned it to my knowledge.

having said that, yeah, legal Wobbles dammit, since it has no real effect on anything in the metagame.