• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Wobbling

Hax

Smash Champion
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
2,552
Location
20XX
..should absolutely not be banned; there's no reason to take an already bad character and sh*t on it. as for it taking no skill, the ic's player goes through more trouble actually grabbing the opponent than he would with any other character in this game which should display a good amount of skill on his part (ic's are nigh impossible to grab with)

banning something due to it requiring little skill isn't even a legitimate argument considering jigglypuff is legal. jigglypuff should be banned before wobbling if this is the case

i think people are pro-ban because it theoretically makes winning a tournament easier for them; not because banning wobbling makes sense. while the chances of actually playing an ic's is scarce these days, i'd definitely feel more confident going into a tourney where, say, chu is my biggest competition knowing he's not allowed to wobble.

banning wobbling goes against character balance and just doesn't make sense in general
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,928
Location
San Francisco, CA
requiring skill or not shouldn't even matter given that we can clearly see it does not dominate (or really, even make anything more than a minor impact on) the metagame

if it's being used as a stall, there's already a poorly worded stalling clause that the TO can choose to apply to it

if the argument is that its presence drastically alters the flow of gameplay from what we perceive to be 'standard', the ice climbers character's mere presence already does that; just ban ICs altogether if one feels the deviation is too strong

if it's just boring, BAN PUFF first, or allow the wobble victim to request a chance to suicide... or just make them suck it up, it doesn't actually take "that" long; 30 seconds to take off a stock guaranteed? not long at all
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
I personally disagree with any tech that completely removes your opponent's control and can be performed pretty much anywhere. My argument is usually countered with "oh but they need to be together... you should be able to keep them separated... you should be able to not get grabbed... etc..." It just goes on and on and on. Not worth arguing about.

To me, it's just like... why shouldn't I just be able to do the ICs freeze glitch, rack up like 250% on you, then grab you and kill you? It's pretty much the same thing, only the ICs freeze glitch is like 10x harder to do

Legalize the freeze glitch imo! It's fine if you aren't using it to stall right?
 

DoH

meleeitonme.tumblr.com
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,622
Location
Washington, DC
Freeze glitch is so fun in teams!!!

Wobbles freezes them and then I down smash them!!!!
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
On the other hand Ice Climbers typically kill you from a grab anyway and it's had zero impact on tournament results, at least at the top level. Chu Dat typically got third in the period before he started using it, and that didn't change at all. It's very gray area and I'm not completely sure where I stand on it, it's the same with similar techniques in Brawl. =/
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
I agree with charles. any tactic akin to removing the opponents controller is ban-worthy. since I'm close friends with chu at this point I can safely speak for him and say that he considers himself bad at wobbling and thinks it disrespectful to the opponent. He doesn't like being used as a centerpiece for the argument.

and wobbling is strictly tactically advantageous side by side to the freeze glitch. it should be unbanned before wobbling is.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
I feel that way and suggested it the last rule set revision and it was accepted. I can still have my personal stance on it and choose not to push for it if I feel that there is a better alternative. It seems the other members no longer like that answer, which is perfectly understandable.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
it's had zero impact on tournament results, at least at the top level.
This statement is false. Wobbles beat Ken almost entirely because of wobbling at SCC imo.

The ICs CGs are not guaranteed on many characters. With wobbling, it doesn't matter what character you are... you get grabbed, you die.

Any argument stating that it should be legal because of how "difficult" it is to get grabs with ICs is not legit btw.
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
I know about that match, but that's just one tournament and Ken never was a fan of playing against Ice Climbers anyway. There've never been repeated large scale upsets because of wobbling and you can only justify banning it with your earlier argument (removing control from the opponent entirely). It makes them slightly more viable because they don't have to work out complex chaingrabs against the entire cast, but in many matchups it doesn't really make much of a difference.
 

Pink Reaper

Real Name No Gimmicks
BRoomer
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
8,339
Location
In the Air, Using Up b as an offensive move
Im all for banning Wobbles, that dude gets way to (arizona)angry.

In all seriousness I do support a ban on wobbling. I didnt originally but as a technique it really is just too powerful to allow, even if it doesnt particularly impact the metagame. Any given IC's CG can, to some degree, be escaped through smash DI and fast attacks with most characters, however wobbling is literally a zero risk, all reward tech. Once it's started there's no hope of combating it, there is literally nothing that can be done to stop it and even if it isnt over-centralizing it does represent a broken tactic as well as a stalling tactic if we need to define it as bannable within our own set of rules.

All that said, i think we should unban the Mewtwo soul stunner.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
I know about that match, but that's just one tournament and Ken never was a fan of playing against Ice Climbers anyway. There've never been repeated large scale upsets because of wobbling and you can only justify banning it with your earlier argument (removing control from the opponent entirely). It makes them slightly more viable because they don't have to work out complex chaingrabs against the entire cast, but in many matchups it doesn't really make much of a difference.
Ken always destroyed IC players... Where are you getting your info?


The argument really isn't over how it changes the IC metagame. It's over the actual technique. It doesn't matter how good or bad the character is. It doesn't even matter if it has affected tournament placings. Why do we ban soul stunner when it isn't even possible to perform in our tournament standard? Why do we ban the ICs freeze glitch? It is because it removes control from the other player. Nothing further even needs to be discussed imo.
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
An interview where he said Ice Climbers are always difficult. The pool of data can't be that big for either side of the argument anyway, I only know of three (somewhat) notable American ICs mains.

I already said your first argument is legit, but any argument involving what wobbling does for the metagame and how broken it is, isn't. If we decide negating DI is bad, then it has to go.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
ICs are always stressful because of the level of punishment they can dish out. What you are trying to imply based on that statement and the reality of his history vs ICs are two different things...

I don't believe I've used anything regarding the impact wobbling has on tournament outcomes or anything similar. I've only responded to what you've posted about that as I feel your information is flawed. I do agree overall that it doesn't matter what the impact to the tournament scene is, its more important to view the technique itself. Hax and pocky are the only ones who referenced impact. I thought we were already past that in the conversation.
 

Marc

Relic of the Past
BRoomer
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
16,323
Location
The Netherlands
Eh, I think we're kind of misunderstanding each other. I was simply stressing the reasoning behind banning wobbling has to come from the philosophical department regarding the lack of control on the opponent's side. The impact on the metagame is traditionally a large part of this argument and I was pointing out the evidence for that is too scarce, incidental and theoretical to be of any use. I felt there was an undertone of "it's too powerful", though not necessarily with your posts, but this isn't a 1 on 1 conversation. ;)
 

ZoSo

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 7, 2003
Messages
2,885
Location
Melee
I think the soul stunner is mentioned in the official ruleset mostly as an EXAMPLE of a technique that disables the opponent's control of their character. At least, that's how I've always interpreted it.

Pink Reaper: It's pretty hard to argue that wobbling is "broken" when it hasn't significantly impacted... anything. Ever. I'm exaggerating, but not by a lot.

With regard to Ken versus Wobbles, remember how Ken went LUIGI in the second round and won easily?

On the other hand, I kind of agree with the comparisons to the freeze glitch. Seems like it should be neither or both, imo.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
@Marc: Agreed. I feel like we are yelling at each other about how we are in agreement. lol.

@Zoso: Remember how that was a result of being forced to switch because he got wobbleraped in the first round? Remember how Wobbles was given CP advantage because of it, having Ken use Luigi and then switching to Sheik the Low Tier Rapist?
 

ZoSo

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 7, 2003
Messages
2,885
Location
Melee
First of all, he was in no way "forced" to switched.

Second, I don't disagree with that summation of the set at all, I just think it's quite a stretch to say that he won entirely or almost entirely because of wobbling.
 

DoH

meleeitonme.tumblr.com
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
7,622
Location
Washington, DC
This statement is false. Wobbles beat Ken almost entirely because of wobbling at SCC imo.
Uh no

Wobbles beat Ken first game, then Ken beat Wobbles with Luigi. Wobbles then won the third match with Sheik. Ken didn't have to go Luigi the third game; he didn't know Rob played Sheik and many other characters.
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,928
Location
San Francisco, CA
I don't believe I've used anything regarding the impact wobbling has on tournament outcomes or anything similar. I've only responded to what you've posted about that as I feel your information is flawed. I do agree overall that it doesn't matter what the impact to the tournament scene is, its more important to view the technique itself. Hax and pocky are the only ones who referenced impact. I thought we were already past that in the conversation.
Well quite simply, I believe that an overcentralizing impact should be the ban criteria

I don't subscribe to the 'it's boring' or 'it's lame' or 'it's disrespectful' schools of banning... if we both agree that it doesn't have a significant (not even approaching the level of banworthiness) impact and both agree that it's boring and lame (which I do agree with), then our argument is really outside the direct scope of wobbling itself and more at the level of what our ultimate goal is in creating the ruleset

Regarding the loss of control, I'm curious whether you think it'd be banworthy if a synced grab over 50 led directly to a KO within 5 seconds instead of taking 30 seconds to accumulate the percentage necessary for a KO

As far as why we ban the soul stunner... sure beats the hell out of me. I personally don't ban it at my tournaments
 

Wobbles

Desert Eskimo
BRoomer
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
2,881
Location
Gilbert, AZ
The infinite *did* help though. No lie.

Just to throw in my own perspective on some of the stuff people say:

1) ICs kill you from a grab anyhow. Oh how I wish. Once a player is really good at spacing, positioning, and camping, it's a nightmare to get a grab on them at all. Then it has to be a solid, sync'ed grab. Then they have to not mash out, and not be outside of the edge range to trigger Nana's AI to perform the handoff. And not know how to smash DI d-throw d-air. On top of that, adding more reps of escapable techniques increases the odds they will get out. So I have to get these magically nice grabs and rely on my opponent's incompetence to take their stock after the fact. And they have to not ever mash out before I can even start the whole thing. Unless I get a guaranteed d-throw CG on the other guy, it is a nightmare to set up even an ordinary chaingrab, let alone an infinite. Then I have to not mess up the whole thing. This "IC grabs = death" is mostly mythical because people never learn how to get out or reduce the number of solid grabs you can get as an IC--the handoff notwithstanding. Oh, and since I mentioned mashing...

2) HOLY **** MASH OUT. I have grabbed people who were good at mashing before and they break out before I can even do a grab attack, at like 50 percent. A perfectly sync'ed grab that would have led to an infinite and I don't even get the opportunity to hit a joystick direction. But people are in the habit of DI'ing and they never mash. I already get like 1 wobble-worthy grab per game at most against good players, I'd hate to think what would happen if they learned to hit more buttons. I'm honestly amazed people never realized that this was viable. I get a grab and people just sit there doing nothing, waiting for death. I almost want to pause the match and tell them, "you know hitting buttons gets you out of grabs faster right?"

3) They would do worse without it. Let's just say for some reason you took out Fox's up-throw and then said "it must be broken b/c you take it out and he does worse." We would slap you. Remove a powerful tool from a character's arsenal and their effectiveness dwindles. Also, see point 1; no infinite means reliance on escapable techniques. Of course they do worse without it. What's the surprise here?

I know the central issue here is character control loss I just wanted to throw it out there anyhow, because it's on my mind regarding the topic. And moving onto *that* topic...

I do not regard it as losing control of your character because the moment the infinite is solidified, your stock is gone. You are just taking a breather. In fact, you are getting the opportunity to sit and reflect on what happened, to think, to plan. If you pretend you already lost the stock, then what you are getting during the infinite is a BLESSING. Because there's still a chance the IC messes up the rhythm or finisher and gives you that stock icon back, and in the mean time you have time to figure things out. I have to sit and make sure I don't screw up, the other guy gets to relax or plan as he sees fit.

The character control thing is you thinking that just because your character hasn't exploded into stars and beams of light that it's still alive. You ****ed up big time and died, and now you're just waiting for the formality to wrap up. That's it. You don't have a stock anymore, so stop acting like you do, and if providence gives it back to you for a short time, be thankful.

My comparison would be air-dodging off the stage. So what if you can pick where you want to fall while you die? Character control is not always tied to the ability to survive. Or say you're Falco trying to up+b while Fox has ledge invincibility above you. You can pick when you want to up+b all you want, you can even opt not to do it at all. Doesn't mean you won't be a sitting duck when Fox comes down to shine you, and it doesn't mean your stock isn't as good as gone assuming basic competence from the other guy.

You have to make a multitude of mistakes to allow the ICs to infinite you. Far fewer mistakes go into completely losing your stock in countless other situations, even if you have the illusion of control while you wait to leave the level boundaries. With the infinite you've still got a shot at living, even if it's the IC screwing up.

Finally, why don't I apply this same logic to the freeze glitch? Because the **** thing can render the match unfinishable. That's enough for me. In order to use it to any actual effect, the player has to actually *end it* so he can attack the opponent without running the risk of being DQ'ed for creating an infinite stall situation (another rule which neatly covers the other main potential issue with the infinite).

For reference on the use of freeze glitch in combos,, see these videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4rO-16MS0w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4OBY4R4870
 

HyugaRicdeau

Baller/Shot-caller
Joined
Jun 4, 2003
Messages
3,899
Location
Portland, OR
Slippi.gg
DRZ#283
What pocky said, plus I have no problem with unbanning the freeze glitch if we put the same stalling caveat on it that we do for wobbling.

I don't really see why "removing control from your character" should matter.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
I have to sit and make sure I don't screw up, the other guy gets to relax or plan as he sees fit.
Wasn't it you people were talking about when at early tournaments when you started using it, you would start messing around with people around you while still wobbling your opponent? Not looking at the screen? Just tap-tap-tapping away? :p

Uh no

Wobbles beat Ken first game, then Ken beat Wobbles with Luigi. Wobbles then won the third match with Sheik. Ken didn't have to go Luigi the third game; he didn't know Rob played Sheik and many other characters.
I say almost entirely because of how much the first match affected the set. The set was over as soon as Ken lost confidence in his Marth. Whether or not he didn't know Rob played other characters doesn't matter really... Ken couldn't go back to Marth, especially not on FD vs ICs.

Wobbles is a great player for sure. It's really just an example of it having an impact at high level play.

Regarding the loss of control, I'm curious whether you think it'd be banworthy if a synced grab over 50 led directly to a KO within 5 seconds instead of taking 30 seconds to accumulate the percentage necessary for a KO

This question doesn't make sense to me. Loss of control and the amount of time something takes are two completely different concepts.
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,928
Location
San Francisco, CA
This question doesn't make sense to me. Loss of control and the amount of time something takes are two completely different concepts.
the question is how how significant that loss of control is with regards to the actual damage that's done

if wobbling only worked for 10 seconds // 30% before the victim broke out, would it matter as much to you? even though the victim has no control in that time window?

there are other ways to set up a 'no control' scenario, like whiffing a rest or getting your shield broken as not jiggly. i simply don't accept it as a criteria unless the victim is somehow getting unfairly victimized in the downtime, which is why i feel that the ending consequence (getting one KO) is relevant to the power of the tactic

edit: (since it's already assumed that 'stalling' is covered by a different rule)
 

KirbyKaze

Smash Legend
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
17,679
Location
Spiral Mountain
Freeze glitch is different because if Nana does a funky throw when you go for the glitch, the opponent can be in a position that is impossible to regrab, thus killing the ability for the match to finish. Unless, of course, you're near the edge, because Nana's throw can be controlled to F-throw/B-throw there, and you just make her F-throw. But then you could have done the Handoff anyway.

Wobbling, to my understanding, doesn't do have such awkward rulings or risks of a game that can't end attached to it. So long as you address that going over 150% or so is considered stalling and they have to end it there.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
I guess after reading Wobble's arguments I have no problem with making it legal. I do feel that you underplay the ability of ICs to land grabs though.
 

Wobbles

Desert Eskimo
BRoomer
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
2,881
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Cactuar: Yeah. And what most people prefer not to mention is that my opponents in that pool were just not that great (not to disrespect them but... well, yeah). They were letting me grab them left and right. I had no pressure to speak of; against somebody who lets me get ONE clutch grab per match, you can bet money that I do *not* stop to watch the Roy ditto on the screen next to me. I tap that A button for dear life and focus on the match in front of me. Sometimes I screw it up anyhow. The infinite is not nearly as easy to do in tournament play against solid players as people think.

Umbreon: Believe me, they have their tricks and setups; many of them are escapable with good DI or just making sure you stay away from certain parts of the stage. Landing grabs with them is a tremendous pain in the ***, far more than people realize. Unfortunately, many of the people who complain about infinites seem pretty gung-ho about charging right into all those awful situations. I think some of these folks touch a hot stove every day and go, "****, that's right, this ****'s hot!"

Players who actually learn and play better than me will go multiple matches without ever getting grabbed. I know people like to say I'm not that great but **** man, ICs are hard as hell to play.

*edit* Oh yeah, and regarding those Ken matches: if I'd been able to handoff back then, the outcome would have been the same. It would have been tougher with more error room but I'd have won that first match.

Fun fact, your opponent has zero character control during the handoff as well, it's just harder. Ban?

(please don't holy crap)
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
Lol. You know you can SDI while stuck in the freeze glitch right, KK? SDI up, up, and away, so they can't regrab. Call them out on stalling imo. :laugh:

@pocky: Just to clarify... are you asking me to explain the difference between the lag frames on rest, the recovery frames on having your shield broken, and being stuck in a grab? I don't agree with the first two being no control scenarios. If you need me to explain that, I will.

@wobbles: ya, I know the people in your pool were randoms lol. The tech just isn't as mentally taxing as you are making it out to be.

(Handoff is awesome btw. <3)
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,928
Location
San Francisco, CA
@pocky: Just to clarify... are you asking me to explain the difference between the lag frames on rest, the recovery frames on having your shield broken, and being stuck in a grab? I don't agree with the first two being no control scenarios. If you need me to explain that, I will.
well what i'm 'really' asking you to explain is why a no-control scenario means 'banworthy' if there's a discrete ending result and time frame for that action
 

Wobbles

Desert Eskimo
BRoomer
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Messages
2,881
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Cactuar: It's also not as easy as people make it out to be! It took me --MONTHS-- of serious tournament play before I could pull it off consistently against people. I spent an entire set against BloodOfTheFallen back in the day trying to infinite him and he never even *realized* it. You'd be amazed how difficult it is to actually infinite in a tournament match. No, it's not as hard as most other stuff. But against a truly good player it *does* require concentration because of everything else that goes on around you during that match. Before POE3 this past weekend, I had something like a 95% handoff rate on just about every character. I was using it to combo into infinites at the edge, and not missing any of them. I played against Kels, Zhu and Iori during my last four sets of the tournament and landed exactly ZERO of them. Tourney pressure changes tech skill, and yeah, that affects the infinite too.

Most people don't take advantage of the time they're being infinited to re-run the scenario in their head and figure out what happened.

And yes, the handoff is awesome! But it also removes control of the character from the opponent provided the IC isn't screwing it up. It actually also constitutes an infinite against DK, Bowser, and works for something like 800% on Ness.

And the freeze glitch SDI stuff is EXACTLY why I would never use it in tourney lol. One of my friends actually managed to SDI out of grab range purely off hits from my forward+b that I used to start it. If I ever did glitch in tourney play I would immediately grab them and start infiniting!
 

Fly_Amanita

Master of Caribou
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,224
Location
Claremont, CA
To bring up another way the freeze glitch differs from wobbling, you always do damage at a more or less linear rate when wobbling, so it's easy to prevent wobbling from being used as a stalling tactic by setting an upper bound on the percentage at which you can wobble, whereas with the freeze glitch, you don't need to do any damage to your opponent to keep him frozen, which makes dealing with its use as a stalling tactic considerably iffier.
 

Cactuar

El Fuego
BRoomer
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
4,823
Location
Philadephia, PA
This isn't really part of my argument, I just wanna know what you guys think of this.

I've played Eggm 3 times in tournament with my ICs. I've won 2 of the 3 matches. The two I won, I wobbleraped him to hell. The only techs I know with ICs are nanapult, freeze glitch, and wobbling.

Every grab I landed that led into wobbling was the result of Eggm falling down and me either resetting him into grab or techchase grabbing him. I think in those two matches, I wobbled him 5 times.

I lost the third match because wobbling was illegal and all I knew how to do is grab into fsmash.

So the question is... does my innate ability to grab Eggm combined with the 5 minutes I put into learning how to wobble justify my wins?

(Lolol. The correct answer is yes. Because its Eggm.)
 

pockyD

Smash Legend
Joined
Jul 21, 2006
Messages
11,928
Location
San Francisco, CA
This isn't really part of my argument, I just wanna know what you guys think of this.

I've played Eggm 3 times in tournament with my ICs. I've won 2 of the 3 matches. The two I won, I wobbleraped him to hell. The only techs I know with ICs are nanapult, freeze glitch, and wobbling.

Every grab I landed that led into wobbling was the result of Eggm falling down and me either resetting him into grab or techchase grabbing him. I think in those two matches, I wobbled him 5 times.

I lost the third match because wobbling was illegal and all I knew how to do is grab into fsmash.

So the question is... does my innate ability to grab Eggm combined with the 5 minutes I put into learning how to wobble justify my wins?

(Lolol. The correct answer is yes. Because its Eggm.)
sounds fine to me

i've seen players pick up peach or sheik on the spot and beat IC or mario players
 
Top Bottom