Talk:Forward smash/Knockback chart

Deletion

I don't know about you guys, but this feels awful un-wiki-like. I also get the impression that the legend system is largely unintuitive, even though it saves space; I don't think expanding the table to make it use less shorthand would help the chart either, that would only make it more cluttered / really big. If I can barely read this, I doubt the readers will even want to look at this. At the best, I think this is better if it were integrated a bit with the Side smash article's list of smashes; they could use such expansion. Opinions? RAN1 (talk • contributions) 04:45, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

So then, do you think I should just add the killing percentages on the side smash page? Omega Tyrant 4:51, April,15, 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically, we have the discussion amongst the community to see what they think, then we do what they think. RAN1 (talk • contributions) 05:03, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

This is a good article. You are experienced with this stuff. I hope we don't have any hard feelings from our Meteor Smash debate, but I could have bad memory, as I only have access to my Wii on special occasions. I trust you about your testing, but let's find a video and review it together, as definitions of meteor smashing can vary, but I remember it is a weak spike. 98.111.95.78 05:50, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

This should be tested from different distances: near the edge, from the center and from the other extreme of FD. And DI should be considered because good people don't miss DI very often, and with DI is more useful than without it. And if you want a move that deals only 1% damage, one easy is Wolf's pummel. Even though Bowser is heaviest, I'm pretty sure that Snake, Donkey Kong, King Dedede, Ganondorf and even Captain Falcon, Ike and Link all live longer than Bowser vertically because their fast fall is much faster than Bowser's. Even this can count horizontally because that allows them to DI more up and still not get KOed for that. This really should be retested and show that it can really help people: Test VS mode, use DI, angle Up and use different distances. Firewario (talk) 11:14, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that this is useful information, but:

1. Have the KO % in its own column to make it easier to see, so if someone doesn't care much about the exact conditions, they can just have a glance.
2. Merge this with the forward smash page in some way.
3. Using Training Mode is all well and good, but that means that in VS mode, the percents may be one or two lower because of the freshness bonus (unless it's even slightly stale, in which case they'll be higher).
4. This chart is "final" (post-calculation) data. Once more testing can be done on the exact knockback done by moves (pre-calculation data), this chart will be become outdated.

Toomai Glittershine The Table Designer 13:32, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

The wiki never ceases to amaze me. We can have long discussions about what a dumb character says in one move to the point that Semi and I have to run it through an equalizer and spectrogram, but when it comes to things that might actually affect gameplay, we don't want to lift a finger to do it. Honestly, this is about the most "wiki-like" new page I've seen added in a while. This wiki is supposed to be a collection of information pertaining to the Smash series. Now, we can sit around and bicker about who feels sorry for the Ancient Minister, if Lucario was in that movie and has ice training, if PK is real, what one character says in his final smash, etc. and accomplish nothing of value or we can actually try and compile information on the gameplay of the smash series. Yes, this page needs some major cleanup, and yes I would like to see this information verified, but all in all this is exactly what this wiki is for. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 18:38, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Merge / Cleanup

Ok, this may not need to be deleted, but we need to discuss whether or not it should be merged, and how we should clean it up in particular. What we need to do right now in terms of cleanup is to make it readable. In terms of merging, I feel as if this would work better if we placed this info in the content of Side smash to make it more concise, but I'm also concerned with the individual sections being way too big / consisting too much of this info. Any thoughts? RAN1 (talk • contributions) 19:21, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

This thing has way too many abbreviations and terms to be cleaned up without a massive rewrite. HavocReaper'48 19:30, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I support merging the article with Side smash, tbh. BNK ^[E|T|C] 12:12, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Edited

I removed the damage dealt from the chart since this chart is about the KO percentages and people can find the damage produced by each smash on the character's SSBB pages. The chart should be more readable now. I am very well aware that attacks at full power are stronger in vs. mode then in training mode (I mentioned this in the article). I am also aware that people can survive well beyond these percentages through DI and momentum canceling. But this chart's main purpose is to show the relative KO power of each forward smash, which isn't going to change in vs. mode and there are few forward smashes that would change their position on the chart once you apply DI and momentum canceling (mainly Snake's would go down and Luigi's would go up). As such, NO ONE can perfectly DI and momentum cancel every attack, making these percentages pretty legit. This chart shows the base percentages of which each forward smash gains the power to KO. An intelligent smasher wouldn't just blindly spam Luigi's forward smash because the opponent's damage was at 90%. They would analyze the situation such as the opponent's character, the stage and their location, and their opponent's skill before going in for the kill. Clarinet Hawk, exactly how do I show "verification"? Omega Tyrant (talk) 21:17, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I now have a different format for this chart and it looks more readable. Now would anyone object to me removing the cleanup tag and if so, would you have any suggestions to improve the chart's clarity? Omega Tyrant 08:29, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is move all of the forward slashes behind the percentages. Other than that, I don't see any issues. Dr. Pain 99 (talk) 15:13, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Now why should I move the forward slashes behind the percentages? Omega Tyrant 23:53, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

To keep it consistent. Some are before and some are after. Dr. Pain 99 (talk) 23:58, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

In the Other Hitboxes sections, each slash comes after a hitbox's KO percentage if there is another hitboc that is not the sweetspot, as such this same slash will be after the first percentage and behind the second percentage. I have each slash between percentages, not before or after. I don't see this inconsistency that you are talking about. Omega Tyrant 00:07, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ok that makes more sense. I misunderstood what meant what. No cleanup needed. Dr. Pain 99 (talk) 00:34, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Merge Discussion

I couldn't find any real merge discussion on this page, so I decided to start it here.

I think we need to keep this page seperate. It is a full page that would make side smash too large, and it is on a topic that deserves a page. Dr. Pain 99 Talk 13:28, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for finally showing some common sense when it comes to merging pages. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:59, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

So should I remove the merge tag? Dr. Pain 99 Talk 15:59, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well, unless anyone objects, I move to remove the merge tag as this would make the side smash page too large and the side smash article itself is incomplete as it lacks proper descriptions of each of the forward smashes. Omega Tyrant 17:19, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Smash 4

With Smash 4 operating on a patch system, precise numbers may quickly run out of date. Will a chart for that game be viable in the same format as Brawl or Melee? Mario128 (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

I would wait for the patches to stop or at least become much less common before making the chart. But yes, we definitely need a chart. John PK SMAAAASH!! 15:53, 6 August 2015 (EDT)

Delete

Let's just do discussion for all 3 here

I personally think these pages are an eyesore. They are inaccurate and inconsistent at times, and as stated on the tag, far far to specific in terms of setup to the point where the information isn't useful. There is also the fact that I highly doubt that anyone wants to make these pages for the other move types. So delete is my vote. Serpent King 14:25, 17 November 2016 (EST)

Honestly, I have to agree with Serpent here. It might've been noteworthy to have once upon a time, but these days, it feels really pointless, in my opinion. It really is outdated and oddly specific so it's not useful at all, just like Serpent said. Adding insult to injury, some of these aren't finished, and it's painfully clear they won't be finished anytime soon. So anyway, tl;dr, I vote delete. Disaster Flare (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2016 (EST)

Delete or merge with parent page. Not because of the issues in the tag, but the fact that we don't do pages like this for any non-Smash attacks. Plus, we shouldn't have pages solely for comparing things IMO. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 16:03, 20 November 2016 (EST)

Bump Serpent King 17:49, 23 November 2016 (EST)

KO. This page is not really needed, i echo the reasons explained above. -- BeepYou (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2016 (EST)

Last bump Serpent King 20:31, 26 November 2016 (EST)

Reopening discussion

On Discord's old conversation logs, I came across discussion for this page and its related pages' deletion, where I seen a couple remarks hoping I wouldn't see this talk page. I have to say such an attitude is disappointing, and it's a bit underhanded to go through with deleting without making an effort to contact someone who could provide indepth insight into the page.

Well I checked the deletion discussion out, and here are the problems I have with it:

• Some clear misunderstanding of the page, while no attempt was made to better understand it.
• A seeming laziness involved, where instead of discussing ways on how to clean up and fix information, and applying this concept to other move types, people went deletionist to rid of any effort.
• Nyargle deleted this page and the other Smash charts, in less than two weeks after the deletion tag was applied with only four people commenting on it, for discussion that all together didn't even take up two paragraphs. For such a large swath of information, there certainly should have been thorough discussion on it and a chance for possible dissenting views to get heard before wiping it out of public view (and again, before making an attempt to contact the admin that was familiar with the page).

So after talking it over with Serpent King, I decided to reopen the discussion of this page (and by extension the other knockback charts), to get a more productive discussion before wiping this information out for good, where ways to improve the page can be discussed, or better deletion reasons with more clear consensus can happen.

So for some things to fix:

• Convert the Brawl "knockback velocity" units to actual knockback units, for consistency with the other games.
• Do what the Brawl chart does with the other games, for more objective approximate values, as in find the actual knockback units needed to KO from standard in those games from various DIs and then do the math.
• Base the "KO% knockback" off the trajectory of the individual moves, instead of considering only the Sakurai angle for all of them.

So then, what comments do people have, or what additional arguments can people bring up for its deletion? Omega Tyrant 02:46, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

As I said in Discord, I am fine with this getting a rebirth, as long as the information is accurately and completely compiled. As it is now, everything that isn't Brawl is totally useless as we have no idea the parameters used in these individual tests. When they are reconstructed, they should use the same (or closest possible, anything (like not actually having KB values in SSB) should be noted) criteria as the Brawl ones so we don't run into the same mess we have now. Serpent King 03:07, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

Do we really need this page? All of this information ought to be in the moveset pages of each character. Having it all here is a little redundant, but does serve as a way to compare the different moves. I wish there was a way to merge this with Forward smash. If we have this kind of page for smash attacks, shouldn't we also have one for every other move type in the games? John HUAH! 09:37, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

"i wish there was a way to merge this with Forward smash"

This page is already a subpage of the forward smash page.

"If we have this kind of page for smash attacks, shouldn't we also have one for every other move type in the games?"

I don't see why statements like these keep getting made, when experienced users (and especially an admin per the prior convo) by default should assume the nonexistence of similar concept pages is from the fact no one just ever did it at this point, like how the vast majority of the individual move pages are nonexistent or mostly incomplete, rather than act it was an deliberate effort to keep them from being made.

With that said, of course the other attacks should have such a page to them when this exists. Omega Tyrant 09:56, 31 March 2017 (EDT)

I feel that three properties of attacks of a specific input aren't significant enough for their own subpage and only serve to require more page loading for those looking for the strongest and weakest Forward Smashes. I would be fine with having hidden sections or tables on the main page, but the current arrangement is too clunky in my view. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 21:28, 2 April 2017 (EDT)

OT, you may have explained what we needed to do with the page, but why is it a necessity to have? Ganonmew, The Evil Clone 18:30, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

How is objective information that actually reflects gameplay and is of interest to readers a "non-necessity"? You should read CHawk's comment in the very first discussion on this page back from when it was first made, this kind of information is what a wiki is for.

@Nyargle: I do not understand what you are saying; are you trying to claim somehow a subpage affects the loading of the main page, and that "causes more loading" is an actual reason to consider the inclusion of information? Omega Tyrant 18:45, 8 April 2017 (EDT)

I'm referring to this setup leading to users looking for data either going on the character pages, which wouldn't involve a page like this at all, or Forward smash, which in turn requires navigation to a subpage that's tedious at best from the reader's point of view. The exact phrase I used was pretty oversimplified, but I was referring to loading from a reader's perspective, not a technical one. Of course, I see the value in having this information in sortable tables, so I'm in favor of a merge with the main page. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 22:19, 10 April 2017 (EDT)

I largely oppose a merge with the main page as it would needlessly bulk it up. The page layout as we have it is fine, it just needs to be corrected. Serpent King 03:37, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

If you're referring to how long the later lists are, we could always make the tables collapsible or something. Nyargleblargle (Contribs) 13:28, 14 April 2017 (EDT)