The true cause of tripping

[Papapaint]

Alright guys...

I've done way more testing. Probably a total of 3 **** hours just doing this stupid dash thing.

I tripped with much less frequency when I dashed with the control stick perfectly parallel to the ground than I did otherwise. I ran several tests, and the most convincing was the following:

I'd do 1,000 dashes with a given character (for the tests, I used Marth, Peach, Sonic, Snake, and Ike. There was no significant difference between character). I'd dash 500 times perfectly, then 500 times sloppily. I would only dash left, to provide more consistency. Then I'd swap the order around.

Out of 500 parallel dashes, the characters would average 8 trips. Out of 500 sloppy dashes, the characters would average 15 trips.

Now then, because of the way statistics work, this could still be simply due to a universal chance. I'm not denying this. But it certainly is interesting.

Also, the idea that "Giving one control setup an advantage over another is silly." is pretty funny. Because, you know, tripping is pretty f*cking silly. Just saying.

 

[Papapaint]

There are people who also claim that Mother Teresa was a saint, when in reality she caused a lot of people to suffer and die just so she could feel closer to God. Don't believe me? Look it up.

SOMEONE only reads the internet. Either that or you've read Canticle for Liebowitz and assumed that the reverend in the final book was somehow symbolic of Mother Teresa.

 

[FeArTeHsMaSh]

Alright guys...

I've done way more testing. Probably a total of 3 **** hours just doing this stupid dash thing.

I tripped with much less frequency when I dashed with the control stick perfectly parallel to the ground than I did otherwise. I ran several tests, and the most convincing was the following:

I'd do 1,000 dashes with a given character (for the tests, I used Marth, Peach, Sonic, Snake, and Ike. There was no significant difference between character). I'd dash 500 times perfectly, then 500 times sloppily. I would only dash left, to provide more consistency. Then I'd swap the order around.

Out of 500 parallel dashes, the characters would average 8 trips. Out of 500 sloppy dashes, the characters would average 15 trips.

Now then, because of the way statistics work, this could still be simply due to a universal chance. I'm not denying this. But it certainly is interesting.

Also, the idea that "Giving one control setup an advantage over another is silly." is pretty funny. Because, you know, tripping is pretty f*cking silly. Just saying.

Based on your results, I'm inclined to believe that;

A) The theory is false.

The different between 8 out of 500 and 15 of out 500 largely indicates the effects are random. If the different were 8 out of 500 and, lets say, 100 out of 500, then the theory would still maintain some merit.

On the other hand;

B) Your Conclusion is Invalid Since Its Impossible To Yield "Perfect" Results On a Wii-Chuck

However, arguing for this conclusion wouldn't sound very convincing. After all, its not hard to do sloppy testings, and the numbers from that are very low.

So far, therefore, I am leaning towards A.

 

[Papapaint]

Based on your results, I'm inclined to believe that;

A) The theory is false.

The different between 8 out of 500 and 15 of out 500 largely indicates the effects are random. If the different were 8 out of 500 and, lets say, 100 out of 500, then the theory would still maintain some merit.

Really? I'd find it pretty significant if I could cut tripping in half.

Also, I should have mentioned that there was far more variation in "sloppy" dashing. While the results for perfect dashing were between 7-10, the results for sloppy dashing ranged from 10-29.

On the other hand;

B) Your Conclusion is Invalid Since Its Impossible To Yield "Perfect" Results On a Wii-Chuck

However, arguing for this conclusion wouldn't sound very convincing. After all, its not hard to do sloppy testings, and the numbers from that are very low.

So far, therefore, I am leaning towards A.

This is confusing. I'm not sure what exactly you're arguing in "B".

 

[MookieRah]

Really? I'd find it pretty significant if I could cut tripping in half.

Not really. You cut it in half after 500 tries? If it was significant then it would be much more than that. As it stands this is still within the realm of your standard randomness. The variance isn't enough to prove much of anything.

 

[Papapaint]

Not really. You cut it in half after 500 tries? If it was significant then it would be much more than that. As it stands this is still within the realm of your standard randomness. The variance isn't enough to prove much of anything.

Where the **** did I say I proved anything?

I said "this is interesting." I said "this could use more testing." I even said "This could still be completely random chance."

If you don't give a ****, fine. Stop coming into this thread and raising a ****storm. No one's asking you to believe anything, and no one's even asking you to contribute.

 

[-Linko-]

Unless of course you are using a wiimote. Then the entire argument goes to crap.

The fact of the matter is this is merely a guess as to why tripping occurs. It's not based by anything factual. It goes against the very nature of the simplification of Brawl. It's also something that when tested is hard to prove either way. Overall, the chance that this has ANYTHING to do with tripping is incredibly small.

Well, EVs and IVs go against the very nature of the simplification of Pokémon. But they have been proven true endless times.

Where are 1337 H4XX0RZ when you need them?

Oh, and why Sakurai would give advantage to some controllers over others? Maybe to re-balance them, because Wiimotes were overwhelming underbalanced. (Less buttons, lack of analog control for some B^, lack of second stick for smashes OR shake smash, etc...)

Has anyone tested wiimote only tripping?

 

[kupo15]

Alright guys...

I've done way more testing. Probably a total of 3 **** hours just doing this stupid dash thing.

I tripped with much less frequency when I dashed with the control stick perfectly parallel to the ground than I did otherwise. I ran several tests, and the most convincing was the following:

I'd do 1,000 dashes with a given character (for the tests, I used Marth, Peach, Sonic, Snake, and Ike. There was no significant difference between character). I'd dash 500 times perfectly, then 500 times sloppily. I would only dash left, to provide more consistency. Then I'd swap the order around.

Out of 500 parallel dashes, the characters would average 8 trips. Out of 500 sloppy dashes, the characters would average 15 trips.

.

I think you forgot about calculating Human Error (that formula you had to do in chemistry class) That would make your argument more complete

I do think this is interesting. I am still straddling the fence on this one.

 

[derf]

8 or 15 out of 500 doesnt approach statistical significance for the angle having any effect. a difference that small actually seems to hint at opposite

 

[Blah17]

Ok, here is my prediction on the whole subject based on what i've read (most of the thread), common sense, and a basic understanding of programming:

From my experiance programming i've found that having really specific things that make a slight differance in effect is actualy the best, so using something like that (the angle of tilt) but having it a relatively small differance (as shown in the testing) - though not going to completely alter the gameplay for an advanced player versus an amateur, would make a differance, in response to the comments about how it would be ridiculas for a game that appeals to "casual" players to have something this specific, since the differance is rather small the casual player won't be significatly hindered by it, here is why:


If two casual players are competing the tripping will be pretty much equel % chance, even with a slight differance in the way they press the control stick. (because the differance is small, as stressed before)

If a casual player is playing against a competitive player, the small differance in tripping wont have any significant effect, the competitive player is more likely to win for other reasons.

If two competitive players are fighting than chances are it will be an extremely close game, so close that perhaps a differance in trip % would affect the outcome


Based on that, a mechanic as described previously which provides a small benefit to those who really care about things like that (competitive players) would actualy have no significant effect in most games, but would be one more thing that a competitive player can master to have an edge on other competitive players, Which is good, the more intricate things that there are to master (but won't really harm those who do not care that much) makes the whole concept of a competitive player more feasible and logical.


So summing all of that up:


Won't make a differance whatsoever to casual players, for them it's just luck, and thats fine.

Will make a differance for those who really want to be the absolute best that they can be.


And finaly, a brief disclaimer:


I do not (just like everyone else) know if the idea about the tilt angle is correct, that is just my opinion on what is most probable based on the data submited and my own knowledge. Open to constructive criticism.

 

[Jegred2]

Is tripping 4 or 5 times every battle normal? I usually play Toon Link and I trip ALOT.

 

[Papapaint]

8 or 15 out of 500 doesnt approach statistical significance for the angle having any effect. a difference that small actually seems to hint at opposite

I don't think you took statistics...

Those results are more than a few standard deviations away... making them statistically significant.

 

[Cobalt]

Occam's Razor screams at this thread.

 

[AAP]

I would agree that pancakes results maybe supportive of the tilt theory, of course these are the results of one test and could very easily be found to fall within the range of random distribution.

With that being said considering that the tripping rate was essentially cut in half and if further tests reveal similar results then i'd say it is a theory that is plausible. Sure it wasn't a huge difference but i mean we're dealing with percentages that are pretty small.

I don't know what Mookie is talking about, this is far from guesses. They're theories people have proposed from observations made while playing the game. Sure it may seem complicated and over thought now, but thats what something is when you don't fully understand it. Unless an attempt is made to see patterns in the randomness it will always remain random. As patterns and trends emerge a fully developed understanding will follow.

So yea to all the naysayers just leave this thread alone tripping will always be random for you cause you've made no attempt to see it as anything but random, at least you'll all be right in your own eyes.

 

[derf]

Occam's Razor screams at this thread.

yea im thinking the same thing

edit: ok sorry pancakei did run the numbers (with the help of ye olde math book). and youve got a z score of 3.31. so yea .0005 odds youre wrong...my bad.

still, you should try this with 1 char on one stage. whose to say different chars dont have different trip rates

 

[Greenpoe]

Thankyou AlmightyPancake for putting forth your own time to quality the idea.

For those who say that its ridiculous for the game to react differently to a Wiimote than other input: This is wrong. The game does react differently. Notice how with a GC/Classic/Nunchuk, you can walk very slowly, or walk slightly faster, walk quickly, or run. The Wiimote can't do all this...so the different input is taken differently, so the Wiimote probably suffers a standard trip-chance.

 

[psicicle]

so only 1 person has actually tested this?

Thanks, that sounds like it was really boring to do (I certainly wouldnt have done that), all the trip-counter stuff seems a little complicated, it seems like tripping might just have a certain probability of happening that is proportional to the way the control stick is angled.

Also Occam's razor is more of a principle than a law...

 

[Greenpoe]

so only 1 person has actually tested this?

Several people tested it (seen on the early pages) and then was went through AlmightyPancake's further battery of testing.

 

[Rith Areous]

A 1.4% difference is well within standard deviation. Thanks for taking the time to test it, but if those numbers do indeed make a conclusion on this theory, it's to refute it. At best, the results remain inconclusive.

 

[SuperSmasher962]

you could start with a random number already in your trip threshold that would explain tripping at the beigging of matches

 

[DD151]

How long until the 1337 H4XX0RZ decode the game and seek for the algorithm that causes tripping?

Before you flame, I must tell you bunch of flamethrowers, that that way (thanx to 1337 h4xx0rz) the competitive Pokémon community found about EVs and IVs. When people first heard of them, they were: "ZOMFG ur ******, ther's NO WAH pokémon training can be so complex (...)"

Nowadays, competitive Pokémon training is all about EVs and IVs.

...

Well, EVs and IVs go against the very nature of the simplification of Pokémon. But they have been proven true endless times.

i'm pretty sure that you don't have a good grasp of what you're talking about, so i'm going to address this.

pokemon has not undergone simplification through its generations. each generation has some added feature that complicates battling in some way - in GSC, it was the special split, the addition of dark and steel types, the advent of held items, and the concept of IV inheritance. in RSE, it was the introduction of a new EV/IV system and the addition of natures and abilities. in DP, it was the new physical/special split that didn't categorize attacks by type only. furthermore, with each generation has come more pokemon, more moves, more items, and more abilities. pokemon is hardly getting simpler.

EVs and IVs have been around since the beginning of pokemon - they're nothing new. in RBY and GSC, EVs for all stats could be maxed and IVs were on a scale from 0-15. each IV point raised a stat by 2, which meant that at max stats, all stats were odd. in RSE and DP, there is a cap on the number of EVs each stat for a pokemon can have and a cap on the number of EVs each pokemon can have total. the IVs also range from 0-31 now, with each point raising a stat by 1.

the point? people have recognized since the beginning that there were some underlying systems that made the "no two pokemon are alike" mantra true. while we may have been struck temporarily by the complexity of the systems, it seemed reasonable that they were structured this way. it's not really like that with tripping in brawl.

 

[Nuvia]

Though it would be nice to know if there are some statistics behind tripping, it's not the biggest problem. Yes it's rather pointless but I think it adds a sense of realism. People trip sometimes if they're in a hurry, so sometimes fighters trip.

Of course in the scope of serious competition this is a hinderance. However I've rarely found myself tripping at a crucial moment. ie when I'm running to interrupt a smash and trip right when it lands sending me flying. Even if something like that happens there's almost always time to react. You could get a counter attack in with the invincibility frames of a character's get up animation. If you keep running after tripping you immediately roll back into position with an extremely small window of vulnerability.

tl;dr: Tripping is something we'll have to practice getting around or even using to our advantage. Even if there's a cause, simply being ready for it is better than monitoring oneself in order to prevent it IMO.

 

[Chromepro]

i'm pretty sure that you don't have a good grasp of what you're talking about, so i'm going to address this.

pokemon has not undergone simplification through its generations. each generation has some added feature that complicates battling in some way - in GSC, it was the special split, the addition of dark and steel types, the advent of held items, and the concept of IV inheritance. in RSE, it was the introduction of a new EV/IV system and the addition of natures and abilities. in DP, it was the new physical/special split that didn't categorize attacks by type only. furthermore, with each generation has come more pokemon, more moves, more items, and more abilities. pokemon is hardly getting simpler.

EVs and IVs have been around since the beginning of pokemon - they're nothing new. in RBY and GSC, EVs for all stats could be maxed and IVs were on a scale from 0-15. each IV point raised a stat by 2, which meant that at max stats, all stats were odd. in RSE and DP, there is a cap on the number of EVs each stat for a pokemon can have and a cap on the number of EVs each pokemon can have total. the IVs also range from 0-31 now, with each point raising a stat by 1.

the point? people have recognized since the beginning that there were some underlying systems that made the "no two pokemon are alike" mantra true. while we may have been struck temporarily by the complexity of the systems, it seemed reasonable that they were structured this way. it's not really like that with tripping in brawl.

Can you please elaborate on the IV and EV things. I would love to know what they mean

 

[DD151]

that would be off topic; try googling them or search guides at gamefaqs.

in a nutshell, they're values hidden in the game that affect a pokemon's stats. EVs (effort values) can be altered by the player through training, but IVs (individual values) are set from when the pokemon is first created by the game through an egg or a wild encounter.

 

[leprechaunlink727]

I think the reason tripping was implemented was to slow Sonic down. Without tripping, Sonic could easily go quickly back and forth using his dash attack, barely giving the opponent enough time to shield. With tripping, Sonic can still run circles around his opponents, but not while attacking. It's effect on other characters is a lame side effect of Sakurai's attempt to balance Sonic's speed.

 

[The_Marooner]

I'm not so sure about that. It seems rather odd to me that in order to balance out one character's speed, Sakurai would take the time to program in this mechanic that affects every character equally, but only on a random basis, so that in many cases, it wouldn't even affect the character he was trying to balance out in the first place. Wouldn't it make more sense to just slow Sonic down, if balance was indeed his intention?

 

[Kikuichimonji]

If we assume tripping is a random chance every time you start a dash, then maybe it was a simple solution to dissuade people from things like foxtrotting.

 

[wazgood]

i find the tested results pretty convincing. extra "randomness" wont counteract the 500 times he repeated his experiment

and maybe the OP has taken calculus and learned normal vectors in linear algebra
perpendicular of normal vector = parallel to the ground

just sayin

 

[Greenpoe]

It makes sense that Sakurai would do this, just like perfect shielding...hard to do, but a good result.

 

[smasher32]

*wants to see where this goes*

*subscribe'd*

 

[Papapaint]

Alright, I've been practicing/testing this for a little bit now, and trying to implement it into my play, and I have this to say:

Even if this is the cause of tripping, trying to avoid it has little to no effect in gameplay.

 

[DD151]

and maybe the OP has taken calculus and learned normal vectors in linear algebra
perpendicular of normal vector = parallel to the ground

uh, yeah... because perpendicular, normal, and orthogonal all mean the same thing.

the perpendicular to a perpendicular is parallel!

 

[Andy"SweetCandy"Wilson]

But why would they design a game where the chances of tripping are higher when you're using a control scheme other than a Wiimote, though? It's not really logical.

It's genius. It's seems like a very interesting way of attacking a balance issue. With the Wiimote you lose the C-Stick, so why would any competitive player use the Wiimote? It's an incentive to use one control scheme over another. Just like characters, advantages and disadvantages.

You also keep bringing up the point that Sakurai has thrown the game out the window in a competitive sense. If tripping actually wasn't random, or there was a way to control it, then tripping would be a genius mechanic implemented to separate casual gamers from competitive ones.

If one doesn't understand tripping(assuming there is something to understand) then there's an element of chance and ultimately fun added to the game. However by doing this developers hinder the game's ability to be competitive. Unless! They create a way around tripping, as proposed here. If there's a way around tripping the requires skill to be implemented, then the developers have done something genius. They've created a mechanic that appeals and enriches the game for both casual and competitive players.

The casual players get a wacky game full of exciting twists and turns. The competitive player gets a way to become better than a given opponent.

 

[Patsie]

I have a theory: Yuna is a huge asshole. And so far, it's been proven correct in every one of his ridiculously high number of posts.

I'll try adding to the testing, but to be honest tripping doesn't bother me too much. It's silly and stupid to even create this dynamic within a fighting game, but at best it's lead to an extra hit here and there.

 

[Papapaint]

Alright, I've been practicing/testing this for a little bit now, and trying to implement it into my play, and I have this to say:

Even if this is the cause of tripping, trying to avoid it has little to no effect in gameplay.

*coughcough

 

[h1roshi]

this is false. tripping is RANDOM!!!!!!!!!! you can start out the match and the first thing you do is trip. There is NO THRESHOLD.

-hiro

 

[AlphaZealot]

Hmm, at first I wrote off this theory, but in matches I rarely trip, maybe an average of 1-2 in a 6 minute match, meanwhile I notice others trip far more often. I shall also do some testing.

 

[Corigames]

...I rarely trip, maybe an average of 1-2 in a 6 minute match, meanwhile I notice others trip far more often...

It's called... random?

This would be like me conducting a theory where if I say... for instance... if you taunt a lot, you are more likely to have health items drop near you than people who don't. If you were told this, I would taunt when no one was on me so that I can get health back, but think about it... how do you test that. Before this, items just dropped like normal... randomly. If I say that you taunt, then the next time a health item drops close to you, you will certainly think, 'Gosh, it worked!' The actuality is that you weren't worrying about it before and, now that you are, it seems to work. Placebo affect in my book.

 

[Paranoid_Android]

Nice try, but tripping is random. This has been irrefutably proven to me by a video showing three marios in practice mode, all controlled simultaneously by the same player, all tripping at random times. If this were true, they would all trip at the same time because they would all exceed their threshold together, being controlled by the same movements.

 

[Randofu]

I don't really buy it. I'm still waiting for a Dojo update on this one.

Or someone could try to make heads or tails of the cracked code.