Another Glimpse Into Tournament Lore

AlphaZealot was in another interview at Smashes my Bros. I highly recommend checking it out. AlphaZealot discusses many of the philosophies involved in the banning of stages, the role of tiers, and a couple other interesting topics.

The wavedash is STILL not a glitch.

Apparently, the logic from my first attempt still confused several readers, so I will reiterate the logic here in a hopefully more understandable manner.

I have been doing software development for a long time. So, despite what many may think a glitch is, I will explain it here. Before software is released, it is tested to its greatest extent. Numbers and scenarios are fed through the system to ensure that it behaves correctly. Let us imagine a basic calculator as an example. Before releasing any kind of calculator software, we must make sure that it reacts appropriately to any given input. So, we test 1 + 1 and get 2. 3 + 5 = 8. 13 + 7 = 20. No matter how many times we run these tests, the results are identical. The software has structured limits on the results based on the input.

So now, the calculator is out in the wild. Like most non-graphing calculators, this one has a solar panel for power. In poorly lighted environments, my calculator starts to operate slowly. Eventually, it goes insane and stops cooperating (despite having power). The display works fun, but I punch in 1 + 1 and get 413 (I really have before). Despite the many tests done by the creators of this calculator, the math operation experienced a glitch. Something happened (most likely the low light conditions) to cause the software to behave irrationally but still believe it was operating correctly (hence the instant result displayed). By giving the calculator more light and restarting it, 1 + 1 once again yielded the expected result of 2.

In the world of Melee, the designers obviously knew about air dodging (since, well, they put it in there), so it probably did not take long for someone to ask the question: What happens when an air dodge comes in contact with a solid surface? Well, if it is anything besides a floor, it simply blocks the momentum. They could have left it that way and had the floor simply stop movement but allow the air dodge animation to continue. They chose instead to have the character slide along the ground (and sliding still exists in Brawl).

Now, there is another big controversy about the definitions of glitch and exploit. Some believe the two are identical. They both relate to intent, but they relate to entirely different intents. An exploit takes advantage of physics in a way the game creator never intended. A glitch violates the physics in a way the software never intended. In other words, while the creator's intent is mostly reflected in the software, a glitch happens when the system reacts contrary to the many tests run before release. Air dodge + contact with floor = slide. That is a natural occurrence in the game. Wavedashing is clearly an exploit because it is doubtful that the creators ever thought players would jump and air dodge so fast that the jump animations were essentially invisible to the point where characters appear to just slide along the ground. However, the software itself behaves 100% as it should.

Now, let us return to the Ice Climbers Freeze Glitch. Something happens in this process that leaves the victim in a grabbed state despite being released (and despite the Ice Climber losing his or her grip but not also freezing). Under all other circumstances, the victim simply breaks loose and is free to move afterward. Somehow, when the Ice Climbers get together, the circumstances become just right to where this system fault is made known.

I have seen Captain Falcon fall through the center of Corneria. I have also seen Fox fall through the center of Pokemon Stadium. The floors are supposed to be solid surfaces. Somewhere in the object collision algorithms, the system suddenly decides that the character ought to be relocated to below the stage. These are software glitches.

Competitive Rant

There was an excellent post on SWF on how many competitive players feel about anti-competitive casual smashers. I felt it was worth noting here.

The crux of this debate is that some people do not want other people to play a certain game competitively. That's it. No one is asking the inverse, demanding that casual gamers play by their arbitrary set of rules. It is simply the anti-competitive crowd going out of their way to spite those who are better than them. Their "arguments" normally focus on some abstract "way the game was meant to be played", which we all know actually means "way I want to play the game". To this I can only say, who killed Sakurai and made YOU king?

For the misinformed, which includes most of the anti-competitive crowd, here are the standardized rules for Super Smash Bros. tournament play:
-4 Stock, 8 Minutes, Team Damage, No Items
-Both players choose one stage to ban for the set
-Both players pick characters at same time and go randomly to one of the six "neutral" stages.
-The loser determines the next stage to go to, from almost all of them. The loser also picks character second.
-Best out of three wins

Obviously, we have to talk about items. Items add luck to the game, period. If a good item appears next to you, you very well could instantly win. If a bomb or exploding container appears in front of your attack, you very well could instantly lose. Players don't like having their skill nullified by luck in a competition. Players enter tournaments to pit their skill against their opponent's, not to gamble. Items benefit top-tier characters more, period. It only widens the gap between characters. Most the high tier characters are fast and/or very aerial, giving them a massive advantage in obtaining items on the stage. Some people say that items were meant to balance the game, claiming that characters like Mewtwo and Pikachu were designed as item gods, and their low tier positions are due to items being banned. This is bull****. If an item spawns directly between Pikachu and Shiek, who will get to it first? Fox and Falco, two of the top characters, even have their reflectors to give them the upper hand even when their opponent has the items! Are you saying they need MORE advantages?

If you want to play competitively with items, go ahead. Make your own tournament. Tournaments are organized by players, not people who own stores. Just don't be surprised when no one shows up, because virtually no one wants to play competitively with items. Tourneys do not play with items because the people attending them don't want to, not because some evil tourney director is making them.

Next stages. Hyrule Temple sucks, ok? Let's get that out of the way first. The bottom zone makes it almost pure luck as to who kills who first, giving certain characters huge advantages and leading to REALLY long matches. If you want to organize a Hyrule Temple tourney, go ahead, no one will show up. The only other stages that are banned are ridiculous ones like Super Flat Zone that no one ever likes anyway.

Now then... The six "neutral stages." People act like tournaments only play on Final Destination, which is ridiculous, since it's only one of the six default stages even, and it's typically banned by a player if their opponent has a good Falco. Some tournaments even play with something called "Dave's stupid rule", which states that no stage can be played twice in a set of matches. Yoshi's Story, Fountain of Dreams, Pokemon Stadium, Battlefield, and Dream Land all receive just as much play as Final Destination, if not more. And those are only the initial stages! The other counter-pick stages just aren't included on Random so you don't get some ridiculous random match-up like fighting Peach or Jigglypuff on Mute City.

So why are there so many people who think tournaments are the scourge of Smash? It's simple really. Every fighting game suffers from this to some degree, but it has hit the Smash community particularly hard due to its "easy to learn, impossible to master" nature: Everyone and their dog thinks they are great at Smash, some are, but most suck. People seem to get the idea that just because they've unlocked all the stages and characters, that they are true masters of the game. Then one day, they come up against someone using advanced techniques with tournament rules, get destroyed, then become angry and bitter towards tournament rules and techniques like wave dashing.

So next time you get beaten by an advanced player ask for some advice rather than the usual, "Bawwwwww! Wave dashing and L-canceleing are such cheep glitches (PROTIP: they're not glitches). The game is supposed to be played on Hyrule Temple with full items." It's not like advanced players are in some secret club, and are determined to keep these techniques hidden from you just to maintain an advantage. With the exception of a few rare douche bags the whole notion of elitism is false, most advanced players would be more than happy to explain advanced techniques to you. Furthermore, it's not even that hard to learn them. In only a couple hours you can learn to wave dash, a couple more and you can learn to L-cancel. From there it's just a matter of practice until you can incorporate them into your game.

So what do casual players have to complain about? Nothing, the anti-competitive crowd just doesn't like the fact that some people are better than them at the game, and they don't want to put forth the effort to become better themselves. That's it. The can claim otherwise all day, but that's it.

Is Competitive Smash a Sport?

A sport (according to Dictionary.com's definition) is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc." So, technically speaking, smash is not a sport, but oftentimes this argument is carried too far to say that smash is forbidden from being considered competitive. The reasons revolve around two primary ideas: smash is "just a video game" (I wonder what Halo is, then), and smash is "not supposed to be competitive" (on account of being wild and wacky and having newb-friendly mechanics). But my goodness, fishing is a sport? I would venture to say that Mario Strikers Charged has more physical exertion than that!

Regardless, the argument that smash cannot be competitive (for whatever reason) is absurd. Any activity is made competitive by those interested in taking it to the next level. I totally missed when cup-stacking became competitive. Chess is one of the more popular competitive brain games. The Rubik's Cube is the source of many new competitive speed solves. Smash is something with a concrete set of rules that clearly yields a winner and a loser. Serious smashers win consecutively suggesting that there is a level of skill involved in determining the winner. If smash is too cheesy to take seriously, then why are experts at putting dishes away allowed to win money and awards?

Another attack on the competitive smash community is that extreme gaming skills are a waste of talent and time. Taking the game too seriously is somehow unhealthy or pathetic. What most casual onlookers do not realize is that top-level play requires major cunning and lightning reflexes. I have great respect for players who can best me 4-stock to none. They demonstrate their ability to read my attacks and intellectualize at a higher level than me. That is not wasted talent; that is a sharpened tool. Gamers are some of the best problem-solvers I have ever met. When I work with gamers on any programming project, solutions come easily since we are so used to challenging odds. "Proper" programmers see only one way to solve a problem and refuse to do anything other than the "correct" way.

If the competitive environment is not for you, that is AOK. There is no shame in playing a game for party-type fun (as that is what games are for), but competitive players do not deserve this form of mockery.

This control scheme wins!

It is worth noting in today's DOJO update about controls that players may now disable control stick jumping. This is something I dreamed of while playing Melee. I prefer using the Y-button to jump as opposed to using the control stick. The buttons just offer so much more precision on when and how to jump.

If you look closely at the upper right corner of this image, you will see "Tap Jump", and it is currently "ON". I guarantee that my control scheme will have that set to "OFF". I cannot count the number of times I (or my wife) have tried to use Link's up-B on the ground (only one of many examples) only to involuntarily take off into the air and be brutally punished by the opponent. Those days are over! I suppose it is worth noting that air dodge self-destructs will be less of a problem too.

This land is your land, this land is my land -- unless your name is Fox

I'd like to talk a moment about the validity of banning stages as opposed to banning characters. On more than one occasion I've overheard talk of banning characters rather than stages in tournament play. The supporting logic of the character ban is this: most banned stages are such because Fox can abuse the layout; just ban Fox and open up more stages. Why not ban Falco while we're at it?

Let's look at this objectively: Often Fox and Falco are not the only characters capable of abusing the stage in the manner offered as the reason for the ban. Using my personal favorite banned stage, Hyrule Temple, as an example, the reason for the ban is (largely) the circular shape it makes. Pichu is just as able to abuse this as is Fox.

Second, eliciting a ban on any character sets a precedent for banning subsequent characters and opens a whole can of worms. You know what happens when you open a can of worms? You've got to eat them. Nobody likes eating worms. Once any character gets banned, it'd be a small step to ban another character. And another?

Also, how many smashers sit down and practice a stage looking to improve their play on that stage? When a stage is banned, players move on with no problem. Their practice time and invested effort isn't attached to a stage; it's attached to a character.

The game isn't about the stage; it's about the player's mastery of the character and the techniques of the game in general. Dropping stages weeds out environments that draw the focus of the game away from that.

Candy Land - The True Test of Skill

Recently, I participated in an extremely interesting debate on how skill is defined. While the true definition is somewhat subjective in terms of video games, I learned what true skill is not. The title of today's article is a direct result of that particular discussion.

Essentially, the entire discussion boiled down skill being one's ability to emerge victorious given exactly equal circumstances to the opponent. While this sounds correct upon first hearing it, the definition of "equal circumstances" was certainly a skewed one in this particular instance. The people in the discussion went on to state that it is unfair how certain players have more time to practice advanced techniques than more casual players, so advanced techniques are forms of cheating in that they grant an unfair advantage against those who have not practiced them. In other words, when two people sit down to play a game, the chances of a newbie winning and a five year veteran winning have to be equal.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but that sounds like a coin toss. Is it not? If the chances of a player who never practices needs to equal that of a polished veteran, only a coin toss will satisfy that. Any other system would steer clear of the needed 50/50 odds. These debaters attempted to clarify that skill implies an ability to adapt and play a new game without experience. So, this changed the argument from a coin toss to a direct measure of God-given talent. Practice is not allowed to alter results; skill simply measures the player's natural ability. Are you confused yet? So am I.

I have checked the world over, and I cannot find one instance of serious competition where this was the measure of skill involved. Last I checked, basketball players were allowed to practice dribbles and shots before competing. Last I checked, skill resulted from hard work and personal refinement as opposed to gaging the amount of dumb luck a person has. However, if these expressions of skill are incorrect, then I suppose Candy Land is the only way we can see how much natural talent a person has. After all, it would be unfair if the game promoted practice or gave anyone an unfair advantage.

You are no fun

Fun. Everyone likes to have fun, but what exactly is it?
Princeton's online dictionary defines fun as "activities that are enjoyable or amusing."

In Smash Bros. Melee, I enjoy winning. Winning is definitely fun, but I also enjoy learning and improving; so losing can be fun, too, provided something is learned from the loss. "Wait, did you just say losing is fun?" That's right. Losing can be fun. It might sound silly, but the only way for something to be fun is to have fun doing it. "Fun" is entirely up to the person having it. Consequently, what one person calls great fun could be the worst idea in the world for the next person.

I loathe coin battles; they're not fun. My little brother loves coin battles; they're great fun! Fun can virtually anything as long as the person doing it is having fun. It's no secret that millions of people love to fish. Fishing is relaxing and generally considered to be sport and a leisure activity. Fishing is fun; however, I hate fishing. It's dreadfully boring and I don't enjoy impaling worms on hooks and then the subsequent removing of the hooks from the fish. Fishing is not fun. I'm certainly not alone in my dislike of fishing.

So fun cannot be defined from a mathmatical standpoint. Fishing is both fun and not fun at the same time. Why? Because it's all in the perceptions of the individual. Everyone has their own personal definition of fun.

Playing Melee competitively is great fun. It drives me to try harder, to play smarter, to react faster, and to be better. Competitive smashing also helps to forge friendships, as those who play competetively tend to gravitate towards each other for more and more competitive play. In this way competetive play is the purest form of fun as far as smashing is concerned; or at least it is to me.

My fun may or not be yours but that doesn't make it any less fun.

CPU Level 10

Practice against human opponents will always be far superior to that of practice against computer opponents. This is true no matter how good the enemy AI is because computers rarely act like humans, and humans are what humans compete against. With the advent of WiFi matches, there is even less need for computer opponents. Despite all this, I thought it would be fun to concoct a new form of smash character AI. (Don't I write the greatest introductions?)

Of course, I have never seen the AI code used in Melee, but everyone can agree that it is pretty bad. At level 9 (the maximum setting), the AI demonstrates superhuman reflexes and amazing timing but walks into just about any attack. The player can simply charge a smash attack and have the opponent walk into it (yes, even at level 9). While I am no expert on designing learning algorithms, I have a few ideas on how to improve the computer's chances of winning, thus unveiling my version of "CPU level 10".

Ideally, Nintendo could take the time to script an algorithm unique to each character, but I propose a more efficient system. First off, the computer would need to be able to understand its own character in terms of each individual available move. It would evaluate each move in terms of startup time, lag, and how it repositions the character. Then, it would evaluate various strings of moves and rank those strings just as if it were chess game. This way, the computer would focus more on successful results rather than simply using a variety of moves. In Melee, the CPU seemed only able to see one or two moves ahead. Preparing multiple move strings that deliver results would (theoretically) bring out a sort of artificial creativity.

Also similar to chess algorithms, the computer could flag certain move strings if they fail a set number of times. This would help to instill a sense of learning into the CPU opponent. By flagging failed strings, the CPU (hopefully) refrains from making the same mistake. In contrast, marking successful strings would encourage reuse. To prevent any inherent stupidity, there would have to be a few higher level logics in place. For instance, even if all viable options have been flagged as failures, the computer should still make an attempt at one of them as opposed to just standing there.

Now to make sense of the madness, here is a real example. Let us imagine I am playing Roy against the computer's Fox. Fox flags dash attacks and dash grabs as bad choices after I sidestep both kinds of attempts. The computer proceeds to ask itself: what is the next fastest way to approach the opponent? There are two good options. Fox can throw a random short-hop and fast fall into the approach just to make the move string new. Another choice would be to dash away before dashing toward (a pivot or single dash dance). In other words, Fox takes a mathematical approach to mind games.

In the end, there will always be flaws in any repeating algorithm. Computers are predictable by nature since they follow preset rules, but a better algorithm would prove a useful challenge for those lacking in smash neighbors.

Creators Intent

All games have a subtle, mystical theme about them in that the whole experience comes from one mind (or one set of minds). Experienced players know how to exploit this element by "getting inside the head of the creator" so to speak. By discovering patterns that are common in a particular game series, solutions to puzzles and enemy weaknesses become more obvious with each iteration.

Take Metroid Prime, for example. The game is very puzzle-heavy, so it is natural for the player to become stuck and be forced to wander aimlessly for a while. However, by understanding the nature of the Metroid universe, players know to retrace their steps using the other available visors in hopes of revealing a secret. Under these circumstances, it helps immensely to know the game creator's intent. Unraveling the mind of the creator drastically simplifies the problem. By being able to anticipate AI's next move, players may exploit that predictability in order to make progress.

Enter the world of Super Smash Bros. (or any multiplayer fighter), and the creator's intent takes a 180. Suddenly, creator's intent no longer helps because that intent is not reflected in the behavior of the opponent. Victory now depends on comprehension of the opponent's intent. This skill of anticipation is all wrapped up into one term: mind games. The greatest players are the ones who literally control their opponents by manipulating their reflexes, habits, and tendencies.

Many smashers look down on the competitive community. Emotions run high when discussing how the game is supposed to be played. Competitive players operate with the philosophy that "if it is in the game and available to everyone, it is fair" (unless it is blatantly game-breaking). Many casual gamers operate within the realm of "the creator's intent", which is usually a mentality surrounding board games. The problem with this mentality is that it is impossible to define the creator's intent, so even such gamers argue with each other about what is "cheap" and what is fair. I have even heard people argue that "because the creator does not know about particular unintended exploits, that means that players would be *gasp* better at the game than the creator". Are creators really offended that fans know more about the game than they do?

To be honest, I believe that in most cases, game creators do not play their own creations anywhere near the same amount as fans do. Is it really so bad that fans are better than the creators? What about games such as SimCity or Rollercoaster Tycoon? Given the level of customization in those games, the purpose is to have fun (however you do that). Smash is exactly the same way. Items can be disabled, stages can be removed from the random list, and there are several modes of play. How do we know that Stamina Mode is not the "correct" way to play? In no way does creator's intent dictate how we are to play the game. There is no "wrong" way to play a game. To suggest otherwise is to stricken us of our creativity.

Confirmed and Unconfirmed

The word "confirmed" is used a lot in the smash community when discussing new tidbits of information. Everyone is anxious to know whether a particular character, stage, advanced technique, etc. is confirmed for Brawl. This is only natural since an official confirmation gives people the green light to start discussing more in-depth possibilities surrounding that which was just confirmed. The problem we run into is that not everyone defines "confirmed" the same way, and various smashers feel offended when "someone dares suggest that Luigi is unconfirmed" since (A) someone high up already verbally leaked the information, and (B) Nintendo would be ridiculous to not include such a key character.

Originally, my definition of "confirmed" as anything that was either presented on the DOJO or explicitly announced by a Nintendo representative on a credible news source (such as IGN). I personally do not believe in mathematical derivation of characters (such as in the Mr. Game & Watch symbol theory); I prefer to just see the character with my own eyes so as to remove any doubt. One day, I had a discussion with Xsyven about the theory suggesting that Samurai Goroh's symbol in the DOJO confirms Captain Falcon (since the symbol belongs to him). He expressed that as far as he was concerned, Captain Falcon was confirmed. I replied that everything is unconfirmed until confirmed and that the symbol simply referenced the F-Zero franchise. Xsyven noticed that my attitude toward the situation clearly reflected my personality as described in Myers-Briggs Typology. He learned about me through my poll posted on Smashboards.

For those interested in learning about themselves, the test is here. Detailed descriptions about the results can be found here. Xsyven pointed out that my personality is INTJ (Introverted iNtuitive Thinking Judge), also known as the "scientist". According the INTJ description, "[INTJs] dislike messiness and inefficiency, and anything that is muddled or unclear. They value clarity and efficiency, and will put enormous amounts of energy and time into consolidating their insights into structured patterns." In other words, my mind simply rejects incomplete or ambiguous ideas. There is no room for doubt.

Xsyven, on the other hand, is an ESTP (a "doer). His personality is described, "They are impatient with theory, and see little use for it in their quest to 'get things done'. An ESTP will occasionally have strong intuitions which are often way off-base, but sometimes very lucid and positive." Xsyven has no interest in waiting for the final work from Sakurai. Small tidbits of evidence are good enough, so Captain Falcon is confirmed whether I like it or not.

So, it all comes down to individual perception. There is no 'official' definition for "confirmed". Many (like myself) reserve the word for those things explicitly mentioned primarily on the DOJO. Others use the word more loosely for anything whose odds are looking pretty good. Members of the smash community must learn to better understand one another, which includes understanding how one another thinks. Just remember that Luigi being "unconfirmed" does nothing to suggest that he will not be in the game. It is a mere formality that expresses his current absence in the DOJO. :)

The wavedash is not a glitch.

In response to the overwhelming number of smashers who believe that wavedashing is glitch, I have taken it upon myself to clarify this otherwise touchy subject. Whether glitches/exploits should be allowed in competitive smash is another discussion for another day. For now, I will explain the wavedash.

If any character air dodges into the ground, he or she will slide along the ground a set distance based on both the angle of contact (steeper angles lead to shorter slides) and individual character friction (Luigi has virtually no friction [more distance] while Zelda has extremely high friction [less distance]). Players take advantage of this part of the physics in order to better maneuver their characters. It can be used to better space attacks, launch a moving smash attack, or quickly slide off the stage into an edge-hog.

The wavedash is a particular variation of this slide. It is used from a standing position (as opposed to wavelanding where a character air dodges into the ground after having fallen from the air). It consists of three parts: jumping, air dodging, and sliding. If you examine each component individually, it should be quite apparent that all three were clearly intended physics of the game. Using all three in quick succession results in a seemingly unique move since the jump animations are completely invisible. However, no part of the wavedash pushes the game outside of its normal boundaries. Everything happens exactly as it should. So, if jumping, air dodging, and sliding are not glitches, how is the resulting maneuver a glitch as so many people believe?

For the sake of argument, let us examine a blatant game glitch: the Ice Climbers freeze glitch ("glitch" is even in the title). This trick also consists of non-glitch components. The simplest way to trigger this glitch is to have one Ice Climber grab while the other breaks the target loose with the hammer spin (forward-B). The target, for whatever reason, suddenly freezes in time and space. The target cannot move (but still can take damage) until grabbed and thrown. This result is clearly a glitch (or the game creators had a twisted sense of humor) as it essentially grants the Ice Climbers a free kill. According to the physics engine, the victim should either take the beatings or be broken loose. The result is clearly a system accident.

The wavedash grants no such advantage. It is not a glitch that guarantees victory; it is one of many tools available to skilled players to enhance their game. To ban wavedashing is to ban forms of creativity in the game. Under such circumstances, it would be only a matter of time before the most basic of combos are deemed dishonorable. At worst, the wavedash is considered an exploit.