Wobbling Discussion Revisited #Evo2kprep

[Mithost]

What people are forgetting about all of this is the rarity of the technique. Let's look at what needs to be present for wobbling to be present.

1. Your opponent needs to be playing as Ice Climbers.
2. Your opponent must still have Nana for the stock.
3. The Ice Climbers player needs to grab you.
4. Nana must be co-operating, and be synced to popo immediately (or really damn close) after the grab hits.
5. You need to be over 40% damage
6. The opponent must continue a lengthy frame-perfect rhythm to avoid you breaking out

Before we go further, let's look at this one by one. The amount of IC mains out there is already pretty slim, especially in a top level tournament like EVO. No matter how much you argue, it is a fact that IC's are one of the least used viable characters in Melee by far. It's fair to say that even if Wobbling is legal, we won't see many IC's getting past the first few rounds. Second point, Nana. You can focus on Nana pretty easily and at least keep them away from each other, ultimately destroying the technique from appearing until your opponent loses their current stock. Third is the grab. Ask any IC's player that has ranked well in tournaments (those highschool tournies and friendlies don't count) about how hard grabs are to land against their average opponent. It isn't some free-ish thing that just happens (like fox's upsmash hurr durr), it takes thesame (if not more) effort to land a grab as IC's as it does to take a full stock in a 50/50 matchup. Fourth is Nana's co-operation. For Wobbling to work, Nana needs to be in a position where she can actually do her part of the technique. This means she isn't dead, trying to catch up to you, air-dodging off some ledge, or locked in another attack on the other side of the stage. Sure, it's the IC's player's job to keep Nana in check, but it's your job as the opponent to butcher Nana as soon as possible. The other two points are self explanatory.

What I was trying to point out with that brick in the word wall is that wobbling is not something that you will see at EVO very often (you won't even see Ice Climbers at EVO very often), simply because it isn't something that is "easy" to do on anyone who can place in tournaments (i.e the entire playerbase at EVO).

The newcomers that start watching this inbetween SSF4:AE brackets probably won't even see the technique. If they do, they will just view it as "hey look at the reward that guy got for spending the entire stock trying to land a really tricky grab" instead of "wow this game must be full of BS like this, i should tell all my friends to actively hate on the community for not making a rule against this kind of stuff". Unless the commentator for the match just spends the entire time moaning and making hopeless noises into the mic when it happens, I can't see anyone other than the person who got hit by it get repulsed from the game because of it.

 

[KoRoBeNiKi]

People discussing Wobbling in 2013, really? Hey look, Ice Climbers are now so top tier now that they can wobble. Oh look at all the Ice Climber mains. Oh wait why are the IC's that low on the tier list. And who is complaining, oh yeah, the people using top tier characters, Falco, Sheik, and Fox mains.

Quite a simple note for you guys. The Ice Climbers haven't been dominant in tournaments since Chu Dat was one of the top players and no, I don't think he ever wobbled.

On a related note, hey WestBallz/anyone in this thread who seems to think that wobbling it is mindless, try using IC's vs. good people, try hitting grabs and not letting Nana die. There is a reason why the IC's aren't top tier. Their grab range is ass even with wavedashes/desynchs.

So lets say you got 1 grab: All of these factors need to occur

1. Your opponent needs to be playing as Ice Climbers.
2. Your opponent must still have Nana for the stock.
3. The Ice Climbers player needs to grab you.
4. Nana must be co-operating, and be synced to popo immediately (or really damn close) after the grab hits.
5. You need to be over 40% damage (or potentially even higher if the person actually knows how to mash out like GimR said. I've personally mashed out of a wobble at 40 percent myself and I am not that fast a masher.)
6. The opponent must continue a lengthy frame-perfect rhythm to avoid you breaking out

And for what? 1 stock. Now do that 4 times in a match in a best 2/3, as in a minimum of 8 grabs. Yeah, grab someone who actually knows anything in this matchup four times per match and do this. Have fun and try to win tournaments or go stick with Falco/Fox and just shine people all day.

 

[SonuvaBeach]

The strength of Wobbles/Hax's/other's argument for wobbling not being banned is stronger.

It basically sums up to: wobbling doesn't make IC's broken/top tier so like it or not, there isn't really a valid reason for ban.

IMO KK's opinion surprises me as he main's sheik. Sheik's chainthrow is an extremely similar concept - except worse. People, such as KirbyKaze, don't do it because it is possible to mess up and don't feel it is as reliable, just like Fly doesn't wobble for the same reason. Yet against most of the cast, Sheik's chainthrow is just an additional tactic that only further invalidates characters. IC's WITH wobbling don't even do that, yet for some reason wobbling being banned is still discussed?

Seems pretty stupid. If wobbling is banned, ban sheik chainthrows more than once as well, ****'s just as boring to watch. Oh and shino stalling, the most boring and easy tactic ever. And you don't even need to land a grab to do it, just the lead.

 

[Nintendude]

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?

At what point does it become 'indefinitely'? Let's say I grab you and alternate headbutt and f-tilt for 10 seconds, then do d-throw dair. Did I just wobble you?

 

[ph00tbag]

Don't be obtuse. You know what indefinitely means.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

Precision matters when defining such things; a single pummel in a grab will lock the opponent in the grab until the whole "getting hit" animation finishes. Following up that pummel with an ftilt, dtilt, jab, or blizzard can prevent escape for a bit longer. To just what extent would one be allowed to continue preventing the opponent from breaking out before it is deemed a wobble?

 

[Nintendude]

Don't be obtuse. You know what indefinitely means.

I'm not being obtuse. You just aren't giving a specific enough definition. Fly's response captures my thoughts pretty accurately.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

I'm just arguing here for the sake of having a well-rounded discussion. Leave wobbling unbanned and let the meta advance.

 

[ph00tbag]

I'm not being obtuse. You just aren't giving a specific enough definition. Fly's response captures my thoughts pretty accurately.

Fly seems to think I want Wobbling banned. Apparently, so do you.

I'm just providing a formal definition of Wobbling. And in that context, "indefinite" is about as precise a word as you can get.

 

[MikeHaggarTHAKJB]

infinite as you like up to 300%
done

 

[RockinRudy]

infinite as you like up to 300%
done

A Number such as infinite​

Is not Three-hundred percent​

infinite is endless time​

It doesn't have a number​

Wobbling is like meditation​

Stronger then any Smash​

Tilts are stronger then up-smash​

Oh you dirty fox​

When the time is right​

Unleash the power within​

Power of the trusty hammer​

From Nana your friend​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Nintendude]

Fly seems to think I want Wobbling banned. Apparently, so do you.

I'm just providing a formal definition of Wobbling. And in that context, "indefinite" is about as precise a word as you can get.

Not at all. I know plenty of pro-wobbling people who don't really know how to define it (including myself). This is the whole point I'm trying to make here. When "indefinite" is as precise as you can get, it indicates that you can't use a time-based metric to define it.

 

[The Irish Mafia]

phootbag, in order to create a ruleset for this game, you need definite terms. "indefinite" is simply not good enough to contribute to this discussion. If you believe it's the most correct word that can be applied to wobbling, then you aren't answering the question put forward by Nintendude.
We all understand and acknowledge that what you're saying is, in a general sense, very correct, and reflects what most of the community is thinking. Yes, the dangerous part of wobbling is that it is indefinite. But what draws the line between an indefinite grab and otherwise? What's the difference between prolonging a grab combo with hitstun and creating an indefinite grab combo?

 

[U.F.O]

Yeah, if you look it at from each others standpoint, whereas the person wants it banned and the other not banned. From this standpoint: If you're someone who doesn't want it banned to think the opposite (as hard as that may be.) Why would I want to ban it? Is it unfair? Is it stalling? Is it demonic and cruel? Well... no not really, and to those that say it is, chain grabbing is nearly the same with just a sliver of chance more of getting out of it. If a professional player starts to chain grab you it's just as likely to lose a stock as wobbling does.

Where exactly does the line draw between banned and not banned? With just a sliver of chance more of getting away from it?

 

[Bones0]

If we can't define wobbling, how do we prevent players from stalling with it? Obviously we can say "No wobbling past 300%", but if wobbling isn't defined then that's meaningless. Should we just define it as "keeping an opponent in an inescapable grab stun for more than 5 consecutive seconds" or something? That way if someone grabs someone at 299%, they still have ample time to KO the opponent however they choose, but they don't have so much freedom that they could stall for more than 5 seconds without letting go of the opponent.

 

[Nintendude]

Honestly, the percentage limit should just be lumped into our catch-all "no stalling" rule. I'm aware that stalling has no good definition but it's always been that way and I don't see that changing. It's just common sense really.

 

[Strong Badam]

Is it lame?
Yes

Is it frustrating?
Yes

Is it relatively easy, and abusable at lower levels of play?
Yes

Does it remove player interaction, something that sets Melee apart from other fighting games?
Yes

Does it obsolete an otherwise extremely dynamic and interesting throw game on a unique character?
Yes

Is it broken or does it make Ice Climbers broken?
No

End of discussion.

 

[ph00tbag]

phootbag, in order to create a ruleset for this game, you need definite terms. "indefinite" is simply not good enough to contribute to this discussion. If you believe it's the most correct word that can be applied to wobbling, then you aren't answering the question put forward by Nintendude.
We all understand and acknowledge that what you're saying is, in a general sense, very correct, and reflects what most of the community is thinking. Yes, the dangerous part of wobbling is that it is indefinite. But what draws the line between an indefinite grab and otherwise? What's the difference between prolonging a grab combo with hitstun and creating an indefinite grab combo?

None. That's my point. That's what indefinite means. It means it's as long as the player causes it to. So yeah, that basically includes any time you attack with Nana during a grab. None of that should be disallowed before 300%, and if you attack a grabbed opponent with Nana above 300% and it doesn't break the grab, you forfeit your stock. It's such a simple concept, and people only think it's impossible to be precise about it because they're afraid of the implications of precision.

 

[Nintendude]

Ok, so your definition of wobbling is "attacking a grabbed opponent with Nana above 300% without breaking the grab." Correct? It actually does work as a concrete functional definition except that sometimes Nana's attacks aren't inputted by the player and it's not always clear what happened.

 

[bertbusdriver]

there are legitimate reasons to attack a grabbed opponent with nana above 300%. like if you grab them in the middle of the rock transformation of stadium you would have to hold them until the transformations ends to guarantee the ko (don't want them to smash DI your upsmash and tech since the walls are very close)

 

[ph00tbag]

Ok, so your definition of wobbling is "attacking a grabbed opponent with Nana above 300% without breaking the grab." Correct? It actually does work as a concrete functional definition except that sometimes Nana's attacks aren't inputted by the player and it's not always clear what happened.

Point of order, my definition of Wobbling is exactly what I posted above. You're describing what I would bar players from doing, which follows from a literal interpretation of my definition.

And certainly, there could be situations where IC's could grab an opponent over 300% and Nana could randomly attack without input from the player. However, given the nature of Melee's metagame, and the ICs metagame in particular, I'm willing to bet you'd have better luck winning the lottery than you would encountering that situation in a tournament match.

Re: bertbusdriver
Tough noogies. Don't grab an opponent in the hole on the rock section of PS above 300%. Better yet, kill them before 300%. It's not like the level has a high ceiling or anything.

 

[bertbusdriver]

if you grab your opponent at 100-something% right at the beginning of the rock transformation. you could feasibly have to wobble until > %300 to reach the end of the transformation.

I saw we leave it unbanned entirely until we see that someone attempts to wobble for 7.5 minutes after taking a stock lead in tournament. It's not like we have m2k playing ICs or anything.

 

[Nintendude]

Point of order, my definition of Wobbling is exactly what I posted above. You're describing what I would bar players from doing, which follows from a literal interpretation of my definition.

You're missing the point here. The whole point of having a precise definition for this is so that "wobbling banned" actually has a meaning. In your case, you don't support a ban on "wobbling" but rather you support a ban on attacking a grabbed opponent with Nana above 300% without breaking the grab. So let's say for discussion's sake you supported a wobbling ban. What definition would you use to enforce it?

 

[ph00tbag]

You can't form a premise from a conclusion.

Well, you can; logic is bidirectional. But you can't guarantee that your premise will be internally consistent with the rest of the system.

 

[Nintendude]

This isn't the time for logic crap like that lol. I'm just putting forth a simple question.

 

[ph00tbag]

I'm saying that answering your question won't achieve anything. I could give you a definition of wobbling that allows you to ban it if I really put my mind to it, but that definition would almost assuredly have nothing to do with Melee in general.

You want me to draw the conclusion that Wobbling should and can be banned, based on a currently undefined premise (the definition of Wobbling). I'm saying you can work backwards from the conclusion you want drawn, and get a premise that makes sense for the conclusion you want drawn, but that premise might not look like Melee.

 

[Nintendude]

I could give you a definition of wobbling that allows you to ban it if I really put my mind to it, but that definition would almost assuredly have nothing to do with Melee in general.

This is pretty much the point I'm trying to prove here, and we seem to be on the same page now. There is no good way to define wobbling (except perhaps that grab damage limit that someone came up with earlier), and thus a ban on "wobbling" is entirely meaningless. There's so many loopholes to get around it.

 

[BTmoney]

Wobbling = more than x amount of consecutive pummels. What is wrong with that?

Spoiler

There is a thread that shows how many inputs you need per percent to break out of a grab (and when the grab naturally lets go if the opponent doesn't do anything and you just hold them). So wobbling would be doing x amount of pummels past a percent where people can still feasibly break out of a grab. (meaning you shouldn't be breaking grabs at 150% wobble all you want, but at 20% you are wobbling. You could define it with that too if someone wanted to look into it and come up with percents. Too bad I can't find the thread.

I'm not for the ban but yeah.

 

[Nintendude]

Wobbling = more than x amount of consecutive pummels. What is wrong with that?

What's a reasonable value for x? How can one argue that x = 10 is broken while x = 9 is not?

 

[Jockmaster]

Well if we can define how many pummels would be equivalent to 0-300% then that doesn't seem too difficult. It's more of a matter of setting the "stall" limit (which seems to be 300% by many peoples' consensus).

So the rule would kinda be this, and it has nothing to do with wobbling as a thing; the word "wobbling" and defining it as a concrete mechanic is completely unnecessary unless we are banning it (which it would seem is not the general desire of the community).

-No stalling*

*Stalling is considered (insert definition of stalling). Also, grabbing an opponent and jabbing/tilting/pummeling them more than ~100 times consecutively in a way that makes it impossible for them to escape is considered stalling.

What's a reasonable value for x? How can one argue that x = 10 is broken while x = 9 is not?

Unfortunately this is a very poor argument to make

Why should a player be allowed x amount of fouls in basketball but not x+1? How is x+1 less reasonable than x?

Basically it comes down to a general feel for the right amount and a consensus, as intangible and abstract as that seems.

 

[Frame Perfect]

wobbles looks like the lead singer of Rise Against

 

[ph00tbag]

Wobbling = more than x amount of consecutive pummels. What is wrong with that?

This excludes actual wobbling, since there's a tilt between each pummel.

 

[BTmoney]

This excludes actual wobbling, since there's a tilt between each pummel.

I meant the pummel/tilt combination. I'm sorry but I thought that was understood lol.

 

[Nintendude]

Unfortunately this is a very poor argument to make

Why should a player be allowed x amount of fouls in basketball but not x+1? How is x+1 less reasonable than x?

Basically it comes down to a general feel for the right amount and a consensus, as intangible and abstract as that seems.

Well I think the goal here is to come up with as concrete and justifiable a definition as possible but you're right in that eventually it will break down into something arbitrary. One thing though is what happens if the player decides to mix it up and throw in blizzards? Should you define it by the number of times Popo headbutts? By the number of times Nana attacks? Or something else?

 

[Jockmaster]

Hmmm, actually the only way to consistently define the stalling nature of the tactic would be to only look at Popo's pummels because that is the only consistent thing about the mechanic.

So a re-wording of my above rule would be

-No stalling*

*Stalling is considered (insert definition of stalling). Also, grabbing an opponent and pummeling them more than ~40 times in one grab while mixing in other attacks in a way that makes it impossible for them to escape is considered stalling.

 

[bertbusdriver]

you don't know for sure that it's impossible for the opponent to break out. The IC player might be pressing A at incorrect rhythm, and the opponent just isn't trying hard enough to escape. Wobbles vs Westballz or Wobbles vs Shroomed at KoC2 has an example of this.

 

[Ziodyne]

Wobbles vs. Shroomed was an example of Shroomed forgetting that IC's can 0-death off of a grab if they get any chance to do so. Or he forgot that Nana needs to resync with Popo before the wobble can actually happen.

In either case, if you know how to mash super fast, you can reasonably break out of even the best wobbling setups up to 40-50%, though afterwards, may as well count ur blessings.

 

[Jockmaster]

you don't know for sure that it's impossible for the opponent to break out. The IC player might be pressing A at incorrect rhythm, and the opponent just isn't trying hard enough to escape. Wobbles vs Westballz or Wobbles vs Shroomed at KoC2 has an example of this.

well it must be assumed that the opponent is trying to counter the tactic. If the opponent isnt trying to win, no tactic can be broken

 

[DrkRoxas]

Since Wobbling is kinda "unique" it is easier to have more people supporting the idea of Wobbling getting banned.
Just curious so Im gonna ask you a question.

What MUs in top 7 (according to the tierlist) do you think ICs are winning respective losing against? (Wobbling allowed)

Still waiting for the answer to this lol.
Wobbling can be pretty frustrating to do, and more so in tournaments. Yes, it is just pressing A rhythmically off a grab, but messing up the tempo is actually pretty easy and once you mess up everything goes down the toilet, the pressure of a tourney can lead you to mess your wobbles, and that's not mentioning the factor that some people can be distracted by the massive noise.
The science of wobbling is easy, but there are a lot of factors that can interfere and besides is pretty damn hard to grab good players, obsessing with wobbling can lead to an IC to commit to heavy punishment.
Bottom line, I'm up for wobbling to be legal.

 

[Nintendude]

I don't quite understand Armada's question. Is he asking which matchups ICs win only with wobbling legal?