User talk:Smash Master/Archive 3

If you wanna brawl me, contact me here on a Friday, a Saturday, or a Sunday.

current talk page

Archives

1. 1
2. 2

Obviously you did not learn from your last experience.

Remember what we said about consulting Toomai or other admins before adding/changing damage percentages? I think you should give it a try. Toomai actually has files containing the theoretical damages (factoring in Stale Move Negation). --Brian^{Don't try me!} 17:02, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

^Listen to this. You don't seem to have learned anything from the above discussion, where consensus held that 1% differences in attack damages could easily be the result of staleness or freshness and thus should be differed to people who can verify percentages. I'm going to make this simple: If you are going to do testing for damages, report it to the talk page first to allow for peer review. Mr. Anontalk 22:56, 13 October 2012 (EDT)

I haven't been changing anything by 1% any more. Can we stop this now, it's getting annoying. Smash Master 00:36, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

Maybe not by 1%, but you have been adding and changing percentages on the bair page, up smash page, and dtilt page without talking to Toomai even AFTER we wrote walls of texts telling you to do so. Fine I concede that the percentages differ by significant amounts and what added to pages w/o percentages is better than nothing, but it's more alarming that you don't learn from your mistakes and change. You say you know changing isn't hard, but you contradict yourself by making no serious effort to change. If you wonder why I told you things twice, I told you because you didn't learn it the 1st time. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 01:42, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

In this edit, you changed Donkey Kong's bair percentage by 1%. While the other, more substantive changes have been verified (I had no problem with them), Mouse has not verified the Donkey Kong one. Mr. Anontalk 11:32, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

I've actually tested some of the damage percentages that Smash Master changed, and they seem to be correct. Yoshi's up smash does deal 18%, and Link's does 22%. Captain Falcon's bair does 16%. And Snake's dtilt deals 10%. Note that these were tested while fresh in training mode. Additionally, the individual articles for the aforementioned characters match my testing as well as Smash Master's edits. I am not excusing or defending any of Smash Master's other behavior, but I think that a user's history should not preclude them from editing in a certain field. That said, changes of 1% are generally unhelpful mainly because of the damage bonus applied to fresh attacks. Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 02:41, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

Stale-move negation doesn't apply in training mode, so I doubt the freshness bonus does. Toast ltimatum 07:05, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

It isn't the substantive changes (like from 7% to 10%) that we are talking about, but rather the 1% differences in attacks that could easily be due to other factors. Mr. Anontalk 11:34, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

@Toast: The freshness bonus does not apply in training mode without hacking stale move negation in, so percentage gotten from there should not be used. Omega Tyrant 13:53, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

In your edit summary, I did not want to archive it because I didn't like the discusion, I archived it because it was getting to big, it's bigger than my first archived talk page. Besides, Toomai said I should archive it, so I did. Smash Master 14:02, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

This is still an active discussions so your not suppost to archive it just yet. Dots The Cute Asian 14:05, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

I thought it was finished. Smash Master 14:06, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

The discussion hasn't concluded yet, regardless if you like it or not or if you think that this discussion is too big. Dots The Cute Asian 14:16, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

I assumed it was finished because no one responded in a while. Smash Master 14:21, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

The last before mine was made at 11:34 am EST, two hours before my post, that's not "no one responding in a while". That's not giving anyone a chance to respond farther. Omega Tyrant 15:04, 14 October 2012 (EDT)

What were you just warned about?

This may seem harsh, but how about actually reading your talk page? Mr. Anontalk 14:39, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Perhaps you should assume good faith, and not asssume that Smash Master's damage percentages are wrong? You don't have access to Brawl, so I know you haven't checked. Toast ltimatum 14:42, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

I realize this. However, Smash Master has been told several times to take small revisions like this to the talk page in the future. I did not revert Smash Master because, as you noted, I cannot verify his edits myself. However, I posted this in reference to the conversations above. Mr. Anontalk 14:48, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Why do you people continue to harp on this user for attempting to be helpful? As long as his edits are not false (which I believe have not been of late) there is nothing wrong going on here. Toomai Glittershine The Chronicler 14:58, 20 October 2012 (EDT)

Policy violations

Hello, your edit summary in this edit is a violation of SW:NPA. For more information on why it is, read the policy itself; it should be pretty clear. If you continue to do things like this, it may be considered as disruptive editing and result in a block, so I would recommend not doing so in the future. ありがとう, Air Conditioner I am the air con. 16:38, 25 October 2012 (EDT)

You should read this SW:1RV. And looking at Mario and Luigi it would appear their up smashes lost both start up lag AND ending lag.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 22:52, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

I know the ending lag has been lost, I have the Wii version of SSB64 so the start up seems faster than Melee (because the gameplay on the Wii is faster than the N64).

And another thing, I have only reverted once, as you can see on the recent changes. Smash Master 23:23, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

I know the ending lag has been lost, I have the Wii version of SSB64 so the start up seems faster than Melee

Well if that is the case, then I have reason to doubt the rest of you edits regarding SSB64, since your not actually playing the real game, rather only an emulation. If you would like to find real information about SSB64 or would like to verify the information you THINK is correct, visit this website BEFORE editing.

And another thing, I have only reverted once, as you can see on the recent changes.

Violation of the policy means reverting someone else's revert of your edit. In the recent example, you posted information of questionable accuracy. I undid that. You then reverted my revert, so you are in violation of the policy. Frame data on SSB64 is hard to come by on smash boards, so I will leave the buffs page as it is for now, until I find the actual frame data.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:40, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

The Virtual Console version should be assumed to be no different than the 64 version unless evidence has been provided to the contrary. Nintendo went through pains to make virtual console emulations as similar as possible to the original (which is why controls do not match up). I used the VC copy for my SSB 64 forward smash tables and other Smash 64 rankings. That is not a reason to doubt his edits. SW:AGF holds.

Other than that, you are correct about SW:1RV. Mr. Anontalk 00:47, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

Similarity

Hi, do you think we're kinda similar? You know the mistakes and all that? People are saying we're kind of similar. The Awesome 22:00, 1 November 2012 (EDT)

I kinda do now that you mentioned it. A lot of are edit do get reverted. lol Smash Master 15:27, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Yeah. The Awesome 21:21, 7 November 2012 (EST)

Tch Tch

What's this I see? Please do actually read your talk page and thinking through what's been said to you. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 23:36, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

Who would give a crap about that, as long as they are correct they are OK, as Toomai pointed out before. Smash Master 00:24, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Such a response only indicates you never even read and took into consideration what we wrote on your talk page. How mature. A smasher would rather know what % a move has when it's fresh, not it's base %. Someone with the skill of semi-professional, which you claim to be, should know that. Also I can't be sure of 2 things. 1 whether or not you are testing this on training mode and 2 whether your allowing all hitboxes of the attack to land or not. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:35, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

The freshness bonus is only visible if the attack does 20% damage or more. So changing 10% to 9% is in fact correct. As for the 13% to 12%, that's an excusable mistake given that the attack in question has a lot of variance. Toomai Glittershine The Quiet 00:41, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Fine fair enough, but still actually learn something from my pestering. Be mindful of your edits and how accurate they may be.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 04:12, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

Using the navbox template on your user pages

...is resulting in the page attempting to link to Template:Smash Master's Userpage. You might want to do something about that, perhaps copying the coding from the navbox template and removing the parts that aren't relevant, or using a more generic table. Air Conditioner It's getting better all the time! 17:16, 7 November 2012 (EST)

I'm hoping that you don't think

a mental condition will justify your poor reverts out of anger. This is the got dang internet, you can take as long as you want to do anything. MegaTron1XD 20:44, 15 November 2012 (EST)

This edit summary

If I see one like it again, that'll be a minor block. Toomai Glittershine The Producer 21:23, 16 November 2012 (EST)

Sorry, I'm still some what mad about the changing the %s by one percent incident, and how they were annoying me about it. Now I know not to do that again. Smash Master 21:31, 16 November 2012 (EST)

Just because people were badgering you about it, or "being mean to you" (if that's the only way your stubborn attitude will let you interpret this incident), does not give you the right to ignore the entire incident. Sure, vilify me all you want, but in the end you'll only be seen an immature kid who can't handle harsh words well. Seriously, grow up.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 23:49, 16 November 2012 (EST)

I'm only being like that because of the way you treat me. I'm usually nicer and more mature than this. Smash Master 23:58, 16 November 2012 (EST)

Not getting angry after that; that's a good sign. Still, you were stubborn about incorrect edits way before I gave you crap for it. Also you should learn to control your anger instead of blaming me for it. You have had ample time to learn from your mistakes, but as I see it from your history, you did not. Both in the past and the present you never truly corrected your behavior or have cared to make meaningful changes to yourself and habits after being criticized. I was nicer then, and continuing being nice didn't change anything. It only showed that you never cared to listen to any of us. That's kinda irritating you know. My patience ran out since you failed to change, even after my little advice talks (the nice ones).--Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:13, 17 November 2012 (EST)

I was only tring to be accurate. The damages I've been changing were incorrect, so I was only tring to be helpful by making them correct. I took it sorta mean because I can't tell if they were nice cuz this is the internet. Smash Master 10:52, 17 November 2012 (EST)

That doesn't change the fact you were being a stubborn little prick about everything. It's your attitude that makes you unlikable, not the edits. And if you were/are getting mad over harsh words on the internet, that says alot about how mature you really are. I really hope you've actually learned from all your mistakes and are prepared to change for the better. You claim it's easy to change, but you haven't. Shape up, kid. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 19:19, 17 November 2012 (EST)

Shake up? What ever that means (in this situation). Smash Master 00:17, 18 November 2012 (EST)

Brian wants you to correct your behavior on this wiki. Dots The Thanksgiving 00:21, 18 November 2012 (EST)