Forum:Banning Characters

Forums: Index → Brawl Talk → Banning Characters

This is not another 'Lets ban Metaknight' topic. In tournaments, randomness is frowned upon. Items are banned because they spawn randomly. Many stages are banned because they have random effects (take WarioWare, Inc. for example). So, what about banning characters? Here are some with random effects:

Peach (SSBB) -Down B summons an item with random damage/knockback -fsmash randomly selects from three available options of damage/knockback

Olimar (SSBB) -Pikmin Pluck summons a random colour of pikmin

Luigi (SSBB) -Green Missile has a 1 in 8 chance of a misfire

King Dedede (SSBB) -Waddle Dee Toss will randomly select between waddle dees, waddle doos, and gordos, as well as capsules occasionally

Mr. Game & Watch (SSBB) -Judge does a random amount of damage/knockback, as well as a random effect

Pokemon Trainer (SSBB) -Razor Leaf curves in a random direction

Random Character -It might already be a rule that you can't click this button.

Just wondering what you guys think about banning characters due to randomness. It makes sense, in my opinion, but I'm not sure if people would be willing to ban charecters. ParadoxJuice (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Choosing a character with random elements has drawbacks, too. Judge can also do 12% damage to the G&W. Miles (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

More of a reason for them to be banned. ParadoxJuice (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Less. Creates balance. Miles (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Banning characters violates First Amendment rights. Yes, it may only apply to the U.S., but spreading some of our values to the rest of the world through Brawl wouldn't hurt, would it? - GalaxiaD ^Talk 01:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

New rule: Don't talk about the constitution or the amendments if you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I've said this many times, the first amendment only states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The operative word here is congress. Independent organizations are allowed to impose whatever restrictions they see fit on their members . I know that there are exceptions to this, but they stem from cases with orders of magnitude more impact on civil rights than this. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, harsh much? I now know that freedom of choice is not part of the First Amendment, but freedom of speech is also not the only right it allows. It also allows freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. All that aside, I apologize for the inaccuracy of my previous comment and any confusion it may have caused. - GalaxiaD ^Talk 00:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. At first I thought this was vandalism, then I realized that I'm not dealing with a vandal, but more like an idiot with a keyboard. That kind of reminds me of the strange case of duplicity that confounded Voltaire whist he was hammering out his version of the Grey's Anatomy (no, not the crappy show, the real book that actually talked about the human body and not just the two parts that go in each other). Anyhow, you people really don't know what you're talking about. You see, characters that do random things do them in a way that we know is coming. Anyway, the person playing the character is as equally effected by that. Remember when the Peloponnesians experimented with intercontinental ballistic missiles? The missles were set to go off once somebody broke Dwayne Johnson's (aka The Rock) high score in Donkey Kong. So the Chinese decided to set up a room of infinite monkeys playing infinite games of Donkey Kong, meaning of course that missles went off, killing off Franz Ferdinand and starting the Cola Wars. Because of this, President McKinley, while dying from the sting of a rare poison dart frog said to once have been Princess Diana's cousin's pet, established social security. Because of social security, McKinley's vice president, William Wallace, the famed Scotish hero, took over after his death. During William Wallace's reign, the commission on Making Sure that You Have A Clue What the First Amendment Says and Does was established, but it failed in its mission after an attack from Sun Tzu's hermitage on Pluto, all pissed off cause he's no longer a planet. Naturally, this brought Diana to Pluto's side, as she too was upset about not being chosen for planetary status by Richard Garfield. So they teamed up, got some rocks, and BAM, now we have a fucking asteroid belt. Anyway, if you want to actually know what Mao Zedong meant when he wrote the first amendment, it was that I can say the last sentence and the Articles of Confederation can't say that I can't. Not you can't say, but the government can't. In summation, don't worry about the swine flu. I've dealt with it before, and it can be defeated with some vinegar and twice baked potatoes, mixed with a vial of Michael Jordan's blood. Drink twice before meals and don't eat tacos. 13375poolR (talk) 04:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

13375poolR : I've got two questions for ya :

- Did they ask your help in any way ? - How long did it take you to write such a bunch of craps ? :D

To answer Paradox, no characters should be banned : this randomness is a price to pay. And there are many others moves to use if you get crappy effects with them. :D Metalink187 (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You want to ban MG&W because of the hammer? A 12% chance of the 9 on the hammer means out of 100 times MG&W does that move, it will only happen 12 times. For Olimar, when you see a certain color a Pikmin you know what to expect and how to react to it. Luigi's missile can be easily dodged. What do you mean randomness is frowned upon. Some people might like randomness in the battle. My opinion is randomness in a battle (not too much) can actually be fun. Randomness a reason to ban characters? Just my opinion. Unknown the Hedgehog 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, no? First of all, this entire banning idea is terrible, as there is a way to beat every character with any character, it just takes a lot more practice with some. No offense, but I clearly remember you flaming at Smoreking simply because he was chaingrabbing you with Falco, and you quit the match. When Olimar draws a pikmin it doesn't matter; all of them have uses. White ones rack up damage, purple ones have near-perfect KOing power (good for taking out heavyweights like they do in the actual game olol), red ones do a lot of damage without latching (second highest knockback; this is all explained on the Olimar article by the way), yellows have hitstun for... er... whatever you can do with hitstun in Brawl, and blue ones are like balanced with the ability to swim and resist water, so you DON'T know what to do when he has a crew of different types, unless of course by some miracle he assembles all five of one kind. Luigi was just ridiculous; he's mid-tier for crying out loud. If Peach didn't have turnips or "items", she'd suck almost as bad as Captain Falcon. Waddle Dee toss is a reliable projectile, having a chance of throwing a wild card gordo only helps him. Random Character... hm, tell that to NinjaLink.

Tl;dr - Stages and items are the only things that should be banned... like, ever. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of banning characters. So what if there's randomness? The overall chaos that erupted on the screen is always what made Smash fun, IMO. On a side note, what does tl:dr mean? I speak l33t, but not internet.L33t Silvie ^{Your epidermis is showing.} 23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Randomness isn't frowned upon simply because it's random, it's frowned upon because it often creates arbitrary imbalance. Moreover, there's a difference between arbitrary randomness that consistently produces imbalance and randomness which is built into characters. That Olimar summons a random Pikmin is not a source of imbalance, nor is Razor Leaf curving in a random direction or Peach's forward smash. Even with the possibility of a Misfire, Luigi's recovery still isn't all that great. Similarly, even though I know that Judge may have a particularly powerful effect every once in a while, I'm not gonna waste my time using Judge a hundred times when I could instead use other, better moves. The expected value of a single use of Judge pales in comparison to, say, G&W's n-air (in SSBM, anyway, -- I don't really play SSBB). And besides, there's a reason that, in spite of the randomness you cite, none of the character's you've mentioned is threatening to knock Metaknight out of the number one spot any time soon. When considering overall character balance, the fact that Peach will pull a dead every once in a while isn't a sufficient source of imbalance to make Peach "unfair" by any standard. Same goes for DDD. So really, there's no compelling reason to ban any of the characters you've mentioned. – Defiant Elements +talk 23:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

^verbose Blue Ninjakoopa 23:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

In terms of sheer size, your post was longer so uhh... yea. – Defiant Elements +talk 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You seriously misinterpreted what I said. I never said that these characters are cheap, nor did I say that they suck. I said that they create an imbalance. The colour of pikmin that Olimar summons greatly effects the battle, but it takes no skill to summon a purple or white. It also takes no skill to get a 1 on G&W hammer-you could have crazy skills hitting with that hammer, yet you still get a 1. Same goes for the other way around. 9 could happen, with absolutely no skill involved. Throwing skill out the window is what is frowned upon. If you're fighting ganon on Pokemon Stadium, and it changes to the very anti-ganon air version, then Ganon can easily say that it is not their opponents skill that beat them, but the stage happening to switch to air. Same goes for Olimars pikmin-if he gets a purple and kills you with it, it is not the players skill that beat you, but the fact that they got a purple pikmin. Works the other way around, if you never get a purple, it is not your fault that you could not KO the opponent, but the fact that you always got blues. Sure, these are small things, but so is the summoning of items. Get a Mr. Saturn? Not a very big deal, but they are out of tournements just because they don't take skill to use. Items are banned due to randomness, even if the changes are small. Stages are banned due to randomness, even if it is something small. So why not charecters? ParadoxJuice (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's another selective reader! No sir, you misinterpreted what we were saying to you. There is no "imbalance" to be honest. And that's all there is to it. Blue Ninjakoopa 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

PJ is right, it doesn't take skill to pull out a purple or white Pikmin but, here's the thing, it's how you use the color. There's probably someone out there who has the best Olimar and can when a match with all blues. Yes a few stages and all items are banned due to randomness but, PJ no offence but, aren't you the one who said camping is a skill? If I remember right, camping is frowned upon. You also said that you like 75m which has randomness on which way the fire moves and randomness on when the springs start to come out. Also you said that Olimar works good there which he also has randomness. So you want to start banning characters when you go to a banned stage that has randomness with a character you want to be banned because of randomness? Unknown the Hedgehog 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I said I like 75m as a faithful recreation. And yes, camping is a skill, not a very difficult skill to use, but that is a tottally different conversation. ParadoxJuice (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It also takes skill to use items. But they're banned because they randomly spawn, creating a large misbalance. ParadoxJuice (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "how you use the color"? If you mean what I think you mean, then you're repeating everything I just said. Blue Ninjakoopa 04:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you bothered to actually look at what is banned? Small amounts of randomness in stages is not an immediate ban. One example: Kongo Jungle's randomly appearing Klap Trap. The question of randomness is not a binary statement of if it is random or not, but a continuous look at if the randomness impacts the game to become the dominant factor in winners and losers. So a Klap Trap appears and took one of four stocks. Big deal. Even if that was the last stock of a Caveman Game, the Klap Trap was not the dominant force in the game. Wario Ware on the other hand basically makes the actual fighting unimportant because the bonuses granted by the microgames (as well as the ridiculous knockback of the stage elements) is so dominant that it completely rewrites the gameplay. As for items, they are not banned because they take no skill to use. In fact, most pro players agree that there are specific skills to using items. However, the spawning of items is completely out of the control of the player and happens to frequently with too much impact on gameplay to be considered conducive to a competitive environment. As for the characters you mention, they fall into the first category of random elements that require attention, but do not predominate the gameplay. Judge, for example, is a matter of risk-reward. As DE said, the neutral-aerial is the more consistent move, but it cannot match the power of Judgment 9. So there's a choice involved for the G&W player. Also, there is the choice involved for the opponent. Do they leave themselves open to the off chance that a Judgment 9 might kill them to capitalize on a greater advantage? These kinds of decisions are what players should be having to make every second of a competitive game. Using a random move is just as disadvantageous or advantageous to the user as it is to the receiver. Understanding the likelihood of different moves happening is part of the game. We're not talking about a character who basically starts the game, flips a coin, and that determines who wins or loses. Oh, and on a side note, Peach won't pull items if they are set to off and none, like the SBR requires. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 02:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but I think that the randomness from the 9 Judge things does kinda takeover the match. That Ivysaur Razor Leaf randomness is way too small to rule a match, not enough to ban 3 characters for (yeah, there is all that stamina and stuff, but still). Luigis misfire is pretty small, also, but it still can mess up a match when you KO without even charging it. Peachs down B isn't big dominant enough to change a match. Olimars pikmin do really change the match, a lot. And the Gordo also changes the match. WarioWare is very random, and its the kind that dominates a match. The Klaptraps do change the match signifigantely, but they appear on schedule ever 10 seconds. But what you mentioned about losing 1 stock because of randomness isn't a big deal, I highly disagree. Losing a stock is a big deal. It may not be like 'flipping a coin to see who wins the match', but it is like 'flipping a coin to see what happens'. ParadoxJuice (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What? Peach can pull a bob-omb or Mr. Saturn even if items are set off. Blue Ninjakoopa 04:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, the two things that are part of her attack randomizer. What I was referring to was the other items that she sometimes pulls if items aren't set to off and none. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 05:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What other items are there? I hate Peach, so I don't know a lot about her. And I barely play any Peach players either olol. Blue Ninjakoopa 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've only ever seen her summon various turnips and the occasional capsule and bob-omb. You are on a wiki about this stuff, though, so I suspect the Vegetable article has some info. Looks like it can pull out Beam Swords and Mr. Saturns. Though, I suspect this won't happen if items are off. ParadoxJuice (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Meh

I dunno, this doesn't seem enough to ban characters for. Still, that occasional KO because of a random element from these characters is EXTREMELY annoying. I'm talking about getting hit by a lvl 9 Judge, or getting KO'd by a misfire when Luigi only charges it for 1-3 frames. Really, why doesn't Nintendo take a hint from all that stuff that got banned in Melee due to randomness? I dunno, Nintendo seems to like leaving out some of the most obvious features. Not being able to charge smashes with the D-pad (seriously?), the uber-broken Metaknight, and not having a way to stop certain characters from being chosen via Random Select like you can with stages. Its those little things in an otherwise perfect game that get on my nerves. ParadoxJuice (talk) 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I fail to understand how you think Brawl revolves around yourself. Please, explain. Blue Ninjakoopa 23:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lulwut? When did I say that? ParadoxJuice (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You pretty much imply it when you spout things such as "it gets on my nerves" and "it messes up my chances of winning" or "I'm assuming most of you agree with me". Blue Ninjakoopa 23:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, what you think I'm 'implying' is absolutely different from what I'm actually saying. Since when does saying things such as 'this gets on my nerves' imply that I am self-centered? I never said it messes up my chances of winning, I said that it is possible to get skilless KOs. And I never even said anything remotely close to "I'm assuming most of you agree with me". ParadoxJuice (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

When you made this blog, did you actually think you were going to prove something? Honestly? Come one man, this is Smash-****ing-Wiki. There's nothing worth risking your account to prove. You created this blog because you think some of the caracters are unfair or cheap, and you think they should be banned. How many people do you think would agree with that? I've been banned seven times, I hope I'm not encouraging anything crazy. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You have serious problems, Ninjakoopa. I'm not surprised you've been banned several times. Yes, this is a wiki, but these are the forums. How could bringing this up possibly risk my account? They can't ban me from the wiki for something I did in the forums. Yeah, I don't have that many contributions, but the point remains. You just don't get it, do you? I never said these characters were cheap, I said they were random. Items are banned 'cause their random, stages are banned 'cause their random, see a pattern? There are some characters which are random, so why not ban them? I just wanted to voice my opinion to the community, to see what others would have to say about it. ParadoxJuice (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've counted eight walls of text, nine if you include 13375poolr's above rant. Didn't think that a forum for banning characters based on randomness would take that much. Besides, I stick with my above view: the chaos is what makes me love Brawl.L33t Silvie ^{Your epidermis is showing.} 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to remember that those that play Smash Bros. competitively are in the minority. If Nintendo wanted to make a Smash Bros. game designed for tournament play, they would have done so. Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Excactly. And tournaments (the minority) change things to be designed for tournament play (banning stages, disablig items), so I was just wondering why they don't go to the extent of completing the tournament setting by getting rid of every thing random. Anyways, you guys seem to disagree because these are really small things rarely become match changing. Thats everyone elses opinion, but my opinion is that these things should be banned because of the match-changingness. Anyways, I don't host tournements, just curious to see what everyone else had to say. ParadoxJuice (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

@Paradox Juice: Well, what I as a tournament organizer have to say is said above. The criteria used to determine banning don't lead to banning characters.

@Toomai: I don't give a damn what Nintendo intended. I paid $50 for SSBB and I will play it however I want. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity (and also to bring this conversation to an end), what is the criteria for banning? ParadoxJuice (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

You know, all of this fucking complaining is going to discourage SSB's prime director to make another Smash game. Blue Ninjakoopa 03:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, what mama doesn't know... Blue Ninjakoopa 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. You see, me paying $50 is all that Nintendo cares about as far as making another Smash game. They made their money, and now they want more. Even if I'm just buying the game to force feed it to Osama bin Laden, all they care about is that I bought it. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Sakurai made Brawl because he wanted smash to be more child friendly (yet he rated it teen; probably because most professionals aren't nine-year-olds), not to get Nintendo money in their pockets... well, not entirely. 1) I don't see how Osama bin Laden has anything to do with this situation and 2) how the hell do you know "they want more"? They're already doing better than their rivals so why would they be trying to take a greedy approach to fame? Nonetheless, Brawl+ is what Brawl should have been like. and they're realizing their mistake. Blue Ninjakoopa 15:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, he made it because they could make money off of it. You see, unlike music and art, programing a game takes tremendous amounts of time and money. If the game isn't going to make you money, you don't make it. If it is you do. Sure, there is the rare case of the highly successful developer who later starts doing stuff just because he can, but half the time he manages to squander all the capital that the studio accumulated before. I will reiterate that I don't give a damn why Sakuri made Brawl. All I know is that his views on competitive gaming almost ruined the game irreparably. And no, Nintendo is not recognizing their mistakes (i.e. not making it like Brawl+). If they were recognizing that they screwed up, they would patch the game to be Brawl+ or at the very least not keep releasing system updates that make the Homebrew Channel (and thus Brawl+) not work. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Think of this. To your opponent, you ARE the most random factor in the game. They can almost never tell what you are thinking of doing. Wavedashing is random. Items are random, but everyone knows that there is a CHANCE of items appearing next to them. Just because there is randomness in a match doesn't mean your helpless against it. Some one throws a bomb at you! Are you doomed? No. Instead you catch it in mid-air and throw it back at your taunting opponent. If you were him, would you think it was random? Possibly... Would you have ever seen it coming? Probrably not... But the chance of your opponent doing that IS random! So why don't they ban people for doing unexpected things? Its random isn't it? Oh yes, randomness is frowned upon most standard tornaments. (Don't care if you do so don't say.) Learner4 (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, that is different from randomness. Its strategy. If you're in the air, and your opponent is next you, you have to make a choice-would it be better to use a fair or a nair? You truly can't tell if a bomb is gonna be spawned. You can't tell which pikmin Olimar is gonna summon. And you definately can't tell which Microgame the WarioWare stage will throw at you next. But, you can tell which attack your opponent will use next-its all strategy. If you're at 140% damage, then its only natural that you're opponent will begin to use high knockback attacks. But if your at 0%, its only natural that you're opponent will use high damage attacks. This is what seperates tournament play from casual play, this is what seperates button mashers from strategizers, this is what seperates good players from bad players. Its also why I thought that some characters should be banned. According to Clarinet Hawk, the criteria for banning doesn't lead to banning characters. ParadoxJuice (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference between banning characters and banning stages is one of complexity. Stage are generally banned for two reasons: either they interrupt the match too severely (WarioWare, the Summit) or they give an unfair advantage/disadvantage to certain characters/groups of characters (Hyrule Temple, the Flat Zones). Characters, on the other hand, need consideration of each of their matchups, combined with each stage, to be deemed bannable. And then compare that with the possible metagame without the suspect. That's some pretty complex stuff. And of course, there's the fact that there's no precedent in Smash Bros. for banning a character. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought that giving an advantage to certain characters would be enough to get it to be banned. Shouldn't Final Destination be banned because of how much of an advantage it gives to characters with projectiles, or at least Snake? Still seems as if these charecters should get banned, though. Once again, I don't host tournements, so it's not up to me. Thank you, Toomai. ParadoxJuice (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's why

I'm going to go through each of the characters you have proposed to be banned and explain why it just doesn't matter that there is 'randomness' associated with each other them, but first, a discussion: 'Randomness' is okay. Game breaking randomness is not. If Olimar summoned one from an infinite set of pikmin with a random knockback/damage value, then he would be banned. If Peach summoned a turnip with a random knockback/damage value, that move would be banned. The reason? Because it's game breaking. Far too often, one would expect that the turnip or pikmin would absolutely destroy all enemies. As it stands, however, Peach's turnips and Olimar's pikmin both are pulled from a very specific set of possible damages and knockbacks, with one entailing the other. Which one of these is picked, however, is random, but that's okay, because the set is small enough that it is both predictable that one of a certain number of outcomes with arise from the use of that move, and because in both cases, they aren't particularly powerful. Under your standards, if Captain Falcon had a move that made him shoot fireballs from his ass that did between 1-5% damage and was particularly hard to hit with, would be cause for Captain Falcon to be banned. If, however, Captain Falcon spawned a level 9 Meta Knight from his ass, then he would not be banned by your standard, because it would not be random. The standard is game breaking potential is the standard, not randomness. Keep in mind also that game changing and game breaking are two very different concepts. Look at the stages that were banned. Many people think that Jungle Japes is random, and it is unfair. The claptraps are random and can change the outcome of a match, but the stage wasn't banned. It wasn't, because the SBR says, and rightly so, that it disadvantages everyone equally and it doesn't break the game. If it randomly spawned a giant cardboard cutout of Michael Jackson that smacked randomly one of the two characters with his one white glove, then it would be banned. If this same thing happened, but Michael Jackson would randomly heal one of two characters by 1% while yelling 'I like to pet the fuzzy rubber band' then it would not be banned.

Since I've already dealt with Peach and Olimar, and someone has already dealt with Mr. G&W, I'll just start with Luigi. This is, tbh, just silly. The misfire is something you have to look out for. Luigi is low on the tier list, because he's not a very good character. If Luigi was top tier because he misfired and it destroyed all enemies, then he would and should be banned. In fact, I'm not even going to go through all the characters because you should get the point by now. It's not randomness, necessarily, in fact much of this randomness is understood and should factor into an opposing player's strategy when engaging a character with these nebulous elements. Semicolon (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol. Almost a rofl, actually. But still, there aren't any attacks like that in the game. And if Captain Falcon could summon a lvl 9 MK from his ass, we'd have a tottally different problem on our hands. I should also point out that the klaptraps on Japes aren't random, but they do give an advantage to the player who spawns on the right side of the screen, since they always come in from the right (it could be an an advantage or a disadvantage. But thats a different conversation). To me, the fact that a G&W player with amazing skills could manage to perfectly time their side B and still end up damaging himself is enough to ban him. It completely gets rid of the skill usually required in the game.

The difference between me and everyone else here-everyone else seems to be convinced that the change must be a big one. However, because of a little thing called the butterfly effect (see here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_Effect ), it will greatly effect the outcome of the match. The fact that Olimar summons a yellow pikmin which curves upwards a greater distance will cause the opponent to dodge differently, meaning that they will be in a different location then if it was a red pikmin, and therefore, the entire match will be changed. Even Peaches vegetables greatly effects the outcome of a match-each does a different amount of knockback, once again meaning that the opponent will end up in a different spot. However, it is good to note that the Peach scenario doesn't 'throw skill out the window'. It takes skill to dodge those vegetables. Olimars does, however-depending on the outcome of the match, Olimar may require a yellow pikmin to properly hit the enemy, but they have none. It was the randomness that severely screwed the player over, not the players lack of skill. If Luigi hits you off stage with a misfire, one can conclude that it was not the Luigi players skill that beat you, as they did not charge it up-instead, it was the randomness that got you. It works the other way around, too-if your Luigi, end up flying off the edge and KOing because of a misfire, it was not your opponents skill that beat you, but the random misfire. I've never actually seen Ivysaurs Razor Leaf curve, I don't think it effects the hitbox, just aesthetics. If a Gordo kills you, you were not killed due to the opponents skill, but because they were lucky enough to get the Gordo. On the flip side of the Dedede argument, it takes skill to hit your opponent with anything at all, so I doubt he should be banned. ParadoxJuice (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't get to go using Butterfly effect like that. What Butterfly effect states is not that any and all changes create equally large outcomes, but simply that the magnitude of the change need not be equal to the magnitude of the change in outcome. For example, let's pretend I'm sitting on an airplane up in the sky with a window to my left and an empty seat five feet to my right. Now, if through some divine force, I am moved five feet to my right, there is very little impact on my future. I'm still on the plane, just in a different seat. But if I am moved five feet to my left, then there is a major impact on my future. I'm now plummeting to my death. The point here is that the distance between my initial position 3 feet either left or right, i.e. the magnitude of the two changes is the same. Yet it is quite clear that the magnitude of the change in impact on my future of those changes is vastly different. That's chaos theory (i.e. the Butterfly Effect). Citation: Lecture given by Dr. Victor Camillo, September 2006. You are trying to claim that any variance has the same magnitude of impact on the outcome, but that is demonstrably false, and chaos theory doesn't help you here. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. I said that the slight change from Peaches turnips greatly effect the outcome of the match. Which still isn't reason enough for her to be banned, since it takes skill to hit with the turnips at all, not throwing skill out the window. Olimars pikmin may be enough to get banned, becuase the whole thing about them curving and doing different amounts of damage can get rid of skill. Lets say your Olimar, and you have 6 pikmin. You may need the white pikmins far throwing range, but don't have any. Its not your fault that you don't have any, you had enough skill to be able to pluck out 6 pikmin (takes some time, y'know), but you still didn't get what you were attempting to. The same can be said for G&Ws hammer-you may have enough skill to hit with it (a lot of wind-up time on that thing), but you end up getting a 1 and taking 12% anyways.

Sorry if I misused the Butterfly effect, I was basically saying that anything that happens will have an effect on the outcome of the match. ParadoxJuice (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• random T.V shows up and everyone watches

The basic truth, a summary by Learner:

Hello everybody, I'm Learner, your host for tonights show. I'm here to explain a bit on what you all are saying. Ok, lets see. Characters, you see, as I have been told earlier, the randomness (and unpredictability of your opponent) of a character's move is stragety. So, seeing this, wouldn't it make sense that if someone actually spawned these random moves repetedly that it is predictable and avoidable? It is stragety. Well, the appearance of an item is not. Lets say you were charging up a smash attack on a dazed opponent and a bomb shows up below your opponent. What happens? You both blow up and it is a tie game (and believe me, it is always posible). That is why items are banned. So things like that don't happen. Think if it like this: lets say someone playing as Game & Watch spawned judge for stragety. However, everytime he uses it, a random item appears. That means he could get a bomb, a golden hammer, or even the final smash AND break it at the same time. You see, if his move did that, he would have criteria AND reason for banishment. Now, what about King Dedede? Well, you see, we know the percenteges of whatever he can throw in appearing. So, given this, he has a slim level of predictibility. Now, the damage and knockback of them is also predictible. Now we also know the damages and knockback of them are. Would you really ban someone if what he [MIGHT] throw was a waddle dee? No not really. Now what about Gordos? Well, given their floaty effect, they are pretty slow. And if you were up close, you also [MIGHT] see him rearing back to throw something, and you [MIGHT] be able to reflect the gordo back at him. So seeing this, he and you are somewhat vunerable. If he however had a chance to throw a missle that splits into two and each one can instantly KO you AND home in on you, he would be banned. Luigi? His green missle is hard to hit at that force. All short characters could easily avoid it. Plus he could Self-destruct too. Peach? Her killer turnip is EXTREAMLY RARE. (On another note; did you know before pumpkins, people made jack-o-lanterns out of turnips? ITS TRUE!) So really, it isn't that big a deal to be worked up about. Now her items and turnips are common? Its still no big deal, you most likely will see them before they can hit you. (If you have a fast trigger finger, congrats btw if you do, you can shield pretty easily.) So I feel that unless their attacks and move sets are dangerous and threatening, then they should stay. This has been my pleasure being with you all folks! See yall next time on The Basic truth! Bye!

I agree with the no ban on Peach, it takes skill to hit with anything. I'm not sure about Dedede, though. Lets say you are amazingly clever with him, and you know ways to get combos with his Waddle Dees by having them very well placed. Now, your on Frigate Orphean, on the platform on the bottom right. Your opponent, Fox, is on the upper left platform, approaching you. You use Waddle Dee Toss against the wall, trying to get a Waddle Dee so that you can use it to combo your opponent (as I said earlier). You get a Gordo. Can't combo with a Gordo, since they disappear. In this time you spend throwing the Gordo, your opponent succsefully approaches and KOs you. You have amazing skills, yet you lost anyways-not because of a lack of skill, but because of that Gordo, which you can never predict. I've already mentioned having mad skills with G&W and still getting a 1 with his Judge move and getting 12%. Its not about the characters having a random element that makes it easy to KO, but about them having a move which, even when you have skill enough to use it in amazing ways, the random element screws you over. Neither Ivysaur or Peach should be banned because of this. However, as I just explained, this is reason enough for Olimar and G&W to be banned, and as I've said earlier, enough for Luigi to be banned as he KOs himself with those misfires. ParadoxJuice (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Now you've shifted from discussing the disadvantages to the opponent of the character (probably because we proved they aren't ban worthy), and are now in the realm of talking about the disadvantage to the player of the character. Look, I play Dedede and I know that sometimes I don't get a Wadle Dee when I want one. Guess what? I deal with it. If the only thing you can prove is that it disadvantages the player of the character, then there are no grounds to ban the character as it is a matter of risk-reward on the part of the person choosing the character. It is not the job of TOs to ban things that might disadvantage the user. Should we ban Captain Falcon because you can have mad skills and still lose because he is utterly horrible? No. Your arguments fall into the same camp.

Also, here's what I would recommend if you're going to continue this argument. Give me the tournament footage of any of these random elements grossly impacting the outcome of a tournament. I've got a pretty good feeling that the SBR knows way more about the tournament scene than you do, so if they haven't seen these as big problems, I doubt they really are. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 21:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Continue the argument? I gave up at the beggining of the 'Meh' section. I'm just restating my points to people who ask. If you choose to use moves which can still fail even if you're amazing with them, thats your fault. ParadoxJuice (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• TV turns on again.

GET ME OUT OF HERE. . . wait, we're live right now? Umm Ok, *clears throat*. Welcome back to the Basic Truth with your host, LEARNER! Ok. . . Looking at King Dedede being able to throw capsules has raised a few eyebrows behind the scenes. Seeing how his capsules have an ENTIRELLY different set of random numbers has made some impact on him. Well, heres the sketch, *pulls down a poster* see here, this is him throwing a waddle dee, and this one he throws a gordo, both hit but they don't KO. Although the gordo did come close to. *Pulls another picture down*, now see here, he throws three capsels. This one droped a heart container, the opponent was able to grab the heart container heal himself, which made the match tougher for King Dedede. In this one it was holding a sticker, which had no effect in the match when the guy who was hit grabbed it. Now this one however, contained explosives, which was enough force to KO the opponent when it landed NEAR him. You see, in this photo, the player missed the opponent, and would most likely have missed with anything else. But the randomness OF the capsules caused it to contain an explosive. In this, te player's skill didn't help him win, it was the explosive. But also remember this, the enemy had the oppertunity to SHIELD himself sucessfully if he tried to. But alas, it happens more so then we give credit for. WELL, this has been THE basic truth with me! LEARNER!!! Until next time everyone, goodbye!

Guess what, champ? When items are set to "off" and "none" Dedede doesn't pull out capsules. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

CH speaks the truth. This is what my argument was all about-there were two sides of it, one that these moves could potentially KO even without skill, though as you stated, in all the scenarios, the opponent had a chance to Shield the move, so that argument is dead. The other side is that even if you had skill, these moves could still fail, such as throwing a Waddle Dee as you described-it was not the players lack of skill that failed to get a KO, it was the randomness. ParadoxJuice (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the nature of this discussion, I think many people might be interested in Mark Rosewater, a Wizard's of the Coast employee and Magic: The Gathering card designer extraordinaire, and his recent article discussing randomness in games. Basically, what he argues is that the entire point of a game is reacting to things that are out of your control. Yet still, the operative word is react. When random things require a reaction on the part of the player, that's all well and good. But a card that says "Flip a coin. If you win the flip you win the game, if not you lose." is silly because there is no reaction to that element. Same applies to Smash Bros. Some random things you can react to, others you cannot. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 01:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that I agree with Clarinet Hawk on this one. Everything he said above is practically true. PurpleDarkness (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)