Talk:Stale-move negation

Using Fox's Blaster 20 times in Training gives about 60% damage, if I remember. However, in Group Brawl, it only does 20. So don't tell me that I'm wrong. I will test knockback later if I feel up to it, as well as Melee. - Gargomon251 (talk) 06:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK I have done thorough testing on both Melee and Brawl.

Both of these tests were done using Luigi using Fire Jump Punch on Bowser, on the Jungle Japes stage, from the top center platform.

Melee

• In Melee, it seems that both training and standard modes use SMN. I didn't count the individual hits or knockback, but the initial FJP dealt 25%, while spamming it repeatedly dropped it to a minimum of 13%. The knockback seemed less, but I didn't actually attempt to measure it.

Brawl

• In Training Mode, I did four FJPs. Each one did exactly 25%, and the final one KOd Bowser at 100%.
• In Group Brawl, the damage went as follows: 26-22-21-18-16-15-14-13-12-11-11-11, with the final blow KOing bowser at 190%. Just to test, I again damaged Bowser to approximately 80%, SDed to reset my SMN, and then did another FJP, which, again, KOd bowser at a little more than 100%.

With a few deviations, it seems to drop in a gradually flattening curve until it stops at 11%. Either way, it seems much more pronounced than it did in Melee. I was suprised how much the knockback reduced. -Gargomon251 (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lucasthalefty (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Sorry totally noob comment but the attacks have to hit the opponent for the negation to occur right? Im pretty sure thats the case but it should be stated in the article.

Stale-Move Negation not in the SSE

I've been doing some testing to calculate the HP of enemies in the SSE, an believe I've discovered that Stale-Move Negation does not apply there. (During the platforming segments, that is. It probably does apply during Smasher vs. Smasher battles, which I have yet to test.) My reasoning: A 2% move (the first hit of Kirby's neutral A) took 4 hits to KO a Goomba on Hard. If SMN applied, it would have done 6.98% damage, implying that Goombas on Hard have 6HP. However, a 7% move (Mario's u-tilt) did not KO a Goomba in one hit (it should have done 7.35% damage). As it is, it took 2 hits, while an 8% move (Mario's f-tilt) only took one hit.

So I'm pretty sure SMN isn't in the SSE unless you're facing another Smasher. But I'd like to have someone else comfirm it before I post it on the article. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 15:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Stale-Move Negation on item-based attacks

The article makes no mention of SMN in relation to items. Are they at all subject to SMN? If so, are all items treated the same? I don't think it would make much sense to track SMN for thrown-items, since most are single-use (With the exception of Mr.Saturn). Also, It would be counterproductive to apply SMN to items such as the Super Scope, Fan and Ray Gun that are all designed to be spammed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.77.45.237 (talk • contribs)

Tested this with Beam Sword. Neutral A does indeed use SMN. Thrown beam swords as well. Regardless of if it's the same sword or you pick up a new one. - Gargomon251 (talk) 20:25, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Even the Ray Gun has this identical effect. - Gargomon251 (talk) 20:27, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Controversy in Brawl

I honestly find that stale move negation is a case of misblaming Brawl for the general calculations alone at least. Brawl upped the move count by only one move, but in comparison to Melee, the range of damage percentage is still not that much different: 55% to 100% for Melee, 50% to 105% for Brawl. It's still desirable to save up moves, which is why Link doesn't effortlessly massacre 15 Minute Melee without B moves or Screw Attack abuse, even with Up Tilt--not that I'm complaining, for the record, since it does encourage move variety with him. Now I'm probably missing something if it even causes more problems in Brawl, but the fact is that Brawl didn't make a direct change here.

For the record, I think the negation should be a subtraction factor rather than percentage based. This would weaken low power attacks so as to stop them from being spammable, and bolster high power attacks that typically have some drawback preventing them from managing a hit. For the standard, probably have Link more or less unaffected by the calculations change. Master Knight DH (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Don't post stuff like this. Only post stuff about the article itself (improving, deleting, etc), not an essay about what you think. BlindColours ...PUNCH!!! 18:16, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

His post was relevant to the article. If he is correct, then the change in SMN between Melee and Brawl is not nearly as much as this article claims. Mr. Anontalk 18:21, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

The damage difference isn't much between the two games. However, knockback is much more severely affected in Brawl, which is where the controversy comes from. Omega Tyrant 18:28, 9 October 2011 (EDT)

Wait

On the article it says "stale-move negation" but the article name is "stale move negation". Should we change the name of the article? Terrible is 2013 CE 21:54, 21 January 2013 (EST)

It needs the hyphen. BRAWLS OF FURY 22:12, 21 January 2013 (EST)

Special Moves

How does SMN effect special moves? Does the move itself use one staleness or is the aerial version seperate? If so, if a move is the same in both the air and on the ground, is it still seperate? Depending on the answers, this might be worth noting in the article (if anyone knows the answers). ♡FirstaLasto♥ 15:31, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Any variations of the same special move share the same staleness slot. I guess it can be worth noting. Toomai Glittershine Da Bess 15:35, 2 March 2014 (EST)

Shulk's Vision is a good example of stale-move negation on special moves: Initially, it has a longest counter window in the game when it's fresh and unused but the counter window becomes shorter if Vision is used frequently. Bayonetta's Down+B Special, Witch Time, is also subject to stale-move negation as the slowdown duration becomes shorter if it's used repeatedly.--Arima (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2016 (EST)

Demo:

In the early access demo of the game, I came across this chunk of text in tips: "Other: Repetition Effect - Using the same attack constantly will decrease its power. Add a little variety to your fighting and spice up your game!" ScoreCounter 06:47, 13 September 2014 (EDT)

Can we test and see if the game still uses a 9-slot system, and perhaps how much it changes for each slot?

Liggliluff (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2014 (EDT)

Damage Multiplier

A table that shows the actual damage multiplier for each game makes far more sense than only showing how much the attack is being reduced by. No one is going to want to do the calculations by themselves, especially for Smash 4 where the numbers are accurate to 5 decimal places. Leave it if you want, just know that I absolutely loathe how it looked before. Gold 17:56, 13 June 2016 (EDT)

The "actual damage multiplier"s that you inserted only function when considering the very specific case of "using the same move repeatedly with no other moves in between". If someone wants to know how weak a move would be in cases like "used move A ten times, then move B five times, and now move A", or "alternating between moves A and B", those numbers don't work. I agree it's not ideal, but as long as we have an example and the max possible stale value in the text, I think it's fine. Toomai Glittershine The Riotous 18:52, 13 June 2016 (EDT)

Jabs affected differently?

So I was doing some testing (as always) and i found that the damage output of some Jabs appear to be reduced less than they should. I don't know how this works (as I can only test things, not inspect code), but it seems as though they are affected differently. Could someone maybe look into it? Alex Parpotta (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2017 (EST)

Smash 4 formula - decimals or rounded fractions?

The Melee and Brawl formulas are straightforward enough, but I find it hard to believe that Sakurai and co. deliberately coded in values with four significant digits for Smash 4. It seems a lot more likely that the values are supposed to be fractions of some sort (e.g. 10/128, 9/128, 8/128, etc.) that were rounded when they were placed in the table. The page edit that added this row to the table doesn't cite a source either. Now that the game's been out for quite a while, can anyone back up Smash 4's numbers with datamined info or anything like that? (The above fractions are made-up examples and don't actually evaluate to anything in the table - but they're the sort of numbers I'd expect to have been the real ones programmed into the game.) Zowayix (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

Also just found this SmashBoards page here (https://smashboards.com/threads/mechanics-techniques-discussion.368206/page-62#post-20693883) that lists different numbers for queue positions 2 - 9. Which set of numbers is the right one? Zowayix (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2017 (EDT)

The staleness queue reduction values are written using floating point values, so they are just decimals. The values listed on the article here are correct, and they can be found within fighter_param_etc.bin (group 3). There's a large online spreadsheet of the datamined values (the owner of the spreadsheet is the same person who posted that Smashboards post; surely when he wrote that, it was an estimation) located Here. I might add this citation myself soon enough, but if anyone gets to it before me then by all means go ahead.--Ben Hall (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2017 (EDT)

Broken links

We need to keep a look out for broken links to this page written as [[stale move]]s, as apparently the admin that removed the redirect page "Stale moves" didn't notice that "Stale move" is not a page. Alex Parpotta (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

I've taken care of it. You can catch stuff like this by going to a page and clicking "what links here", even if the page has been deleted. Zyrac(talk•contribs) 16:41, 2 June 2017 (EDT)

Potential reasoning for the specific numbers in Sm4sh and Ultimate

I was initially looking for an easier way to remember the specific factors for Ultimate (...I don't know why anymore), so I calculated the differences between successive factors in the table (SSB4 is here for similarity):

Queue position	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	1-9 diff.
Ultimate	0.09	0.08545	0.07635	0.0679	0.05945	0.05035	0.04255	0.03345	0.025	0.065
Ultimate diffs.	0.00455	0.0091	0.00845	0.00845	0.0091	0.0078	0.0091	0.00845	--	--
SSB4	0.08	0.07594	0.06782	0.06028	0.05274	0.04462	0.03766	0.02954	0.022	0.058
SSB4 diffs.	0.00406	0.00812	0.00754	0.00754	0.00812	0.00696	0.00812	0.00754	--	--

Now, it turns out that all of the differences are whole percentages of the difference between the 1st and 9th positions (I initially noticed this because 78, 91, and 455 are all somewhat common multiples (6, 7, and 35) of 13):

• 0.065 × 0.07 = 0.00455
• 0.058 × 0.07 = 0.00406
• 0.065 × 0.14 = 0.0091
• 0.058 × 0.14 = 0.00812
• 0.065 × 0.13 = 0.00845
• 0.058 × 0.13 = 0.00754
• 0.065 × 0.12 = 0.0078
• 0.058 × 0.12 = 0.00696

(The differences between the same positions are also the same percentages of the total in both SSB4 and Ultimate.) I have no idea if this can somehow be added to the article, or how it would be worded, but ... at the very least, it should probably be written here. At least it sort of makes sense why these very specific numbers were used now. Volleo6144 (talk) 20:12, April 10, 2020 (EDT)