Talk:Recovery

Why does this need to be its own article? It's basically just the vertical equivalent of Maximum Recovery. And what are you talking about, "just one move"? There's already a huge list. And why did you revert my note about Lucas? - Gargomon251 (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why this is called "Wonder Height Recoveries". --RJM ^Talk 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

...on second thought, I like the page (not the name though. It was on short notice). I had noticed how certain Up-B's and other moves all brought characters to a specific and all time high height. I listed them all here. I think its useful...oh, and I didn't know what you were talking about in the Lucas one. Now I do :P. Sorry.--Oxico (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

mm, i would love to have dedede's on here, but last i checked, luigi's and dedede's were not confirmed as wonder height recoveries... Kperfekt722 (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of this page? It and maximum recovery seem to be the same thing. Unless there was a dojo update that I missed, this just seems like a personal nickname for a pretty arbitrary thing. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 04:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up this page, CH. BTW, I made Maximum Recovery. Just so you know. I hope people can learn from it. Runer5h (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Runer5h

Merge

Why was the page renamed, yet not merged with the Recovery page? FyreNWater - (Talk • Contributions ) 22:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh no you don't. Don't merge this with recovery. Would you merge "Falcon Punch" with "Special Move"? Runer5h (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Runer5h

Of course not, those are two different things. These aren't. Rita's right, these are just ways of performing a recovery, which isn't necessarily an up special (or even a special move for that matter). As for why it was moved and merged with recovery, it was just merged with the even more unnecessary "Wonder Hight Recovery." Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 23:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It should actually be moved to [Recovery (SSBB)]] and then the Recovery article should have comments about recovery in general as it applies to the three games, as well as links to [Recovery (SSBB)]], [Recovery (SSBM)]] and [Recovery (SSB)]]. --RJM ^Talk 20:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE WONDER HEIGHT RECOVERIES PAGE? Kperfekt722 (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the exact same thing as this. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really... but "Wonder Height Recoveries" was nonsense anyways. So some recoveries go very high in the air, it doesn't need an artucle. This page, on the other hand, tells you how to perform the best recovery possible. Runer5h (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Runer5h

Survival techniques

I feel that this article needs to include some kind of list of techniques that can help the character survive for longer (such as crouch cancel or DI). Anyone else? – Smiddle_T 09:17, 13 February 2011 (EST)

No, those are different subjects unrelated to recovering. Omega Tyrant 09:44, 13 February 2011 (EST)

I see. Although not here, wouldn't it be good if techniques like those were covered somewhere? – Smiddle_T 12:13, 13 February 2011 (EST)

They're already covered, that's why they have their own articles. Omega Tyrant 22:05, 13 February 2011 (EST)

I meant an article where they would be listed (or something), supposing that someone were looking for survival techniques. – Smiddle_T 13:29, 14 February 2011 (EST)

Down air stall

What of this technique and others like it that increase recovery? Are they considered to situational? 71.189.12.30 01:11, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

Yea, since that technique depends on your opponent being dumb and helping you, it is situational. No way this is going to save your life in tournament. In fact why would this be a recovery technique since you probably wont be offstage when you can use it? --Brian^{Don't try me!} 01:18, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

It's situational, but it can definitely be used to help. Your opponent hitting you offstage is not at all "being dumb and helping you", what else is the opponent going to do, not try to hit you at all or go exclusively for vertical kills? Omega Tyrant 01:39, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

I thought the glitch only works if you have vertical momentum negating the stall and fall momentum.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 01:41, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

Speaking of the glitch, I'd like some frame data info on why the glitch actually works. Who is the Magus for brawl frame data?--Brian^{Don't try me!} 01:43, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

I tried the technique myself and you can get into a good rhythm of using it, albeit it might take a little bit. It seems to work with even a somewhat low amount of vertical knockback, such as the knockback associated with using strong horizontal launch moves. 71.104.249.192 21:29, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

Again find me the Magus of Brawl and have him provide the frame data. I don't really consider "it seems to work when___" as true evidence.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 22:24, 7 October 2013 (EDT)

... I don't know who you're talking about but it is confirmed that this technique assists with horizontal recovery and can be executed when horizontally launched so I say it should be added to the article for any and all characters that are capable of executing it. All in favor say "Ay". 173.58.244.217 00:34, 9 October 2013 (EDT)

Ay. Here's a list of aerial stall-then-fall attacks:

Zero Suit Samus: Down aerial;

Sonic: Down aerial;

Sheik: Down aerial;

Toon Link: Down aerial;

Ice Climbers: Down aerial;

Mr. Game & Watch: Down aerial;

Wario-Man: Down aerial; 71.165.100.9 00:21, 10 October 2013 (EDT)

Let me make myself more clear: I am looking for a person who can provide me frame data that tells me exactly what the conditions are to activate the glitch. This will allow me to test whether or not the glitch can be done consistently on demand. From what it seems, down air stall can't be activated consistently. People who play professionally don't use this to recover at all. Hence that's why i claimed the technique too situational to be listed.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:38, 10 October 2013 (EDT)

Correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to be more of a question for the down air stall page itself. I understand your concern of its consistancy, but it has been shown to work when it is need and I myself have performed the glitch successfully. So despite possible failure, I regard it fitting for a page that is supposed to contain all ways to recover to the stage. 71.165.100.9 00:45, 10 October 2013 (EDT)

The possibility of failure seems high though. It may work when you need it once, but more often than not it won't work and when you need it and go for it you'll plummet to death. We shouldn't list this as we should only list things that are proven to be reliable and fail safe. Smashwiki has a bad rep for listing poor, inaccurate, or useless information like labeling this glitch as something you can rely on. We need to change that.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:51, 10 October 2013 (EDT)

I am sorry, but I do not have the information you require. All I can say is my personal experience when using the glitch. I have not used it enough to judge whether it is consistant or not. All can say is what it seems to be true of the glitch. I guess we need somebody else to join this talk page to provide this information. As you requested earlier. 71.165.100.9 10:06, 10 October 2013 (EDT)

However, at worst it seems that you will fall at a slowed rate while attacking, assuming you aren't just performing it after jumping. 71.165.100.9 22:05, 10 October 2013 (EDT)

Hello... could somebody please add to the conversation? 71.165.100.9 20:44, 10 October 2013 (EDT)

I still say this should be added to the page for its usefulness despite the fact that it is not really noticed by most players. Sure it comes with risk, but so do other great techniques such as double jump canceling. Even if it is judged too risky, this page should acknowledge the glitch's existence and who can perform it. If it really is a concern we could just put in a footnote about its risk. Are there any objections? 96.229.195.73 23:51, 11 October 2013 (EDT)

Given Brawl's floaty *** physics, the technique is of only moderate help and the risk is too high to merit use. Professional players would never risk losing a stock for a glitch not known to be consistent and neither should you. And your comparison of examples is flawed. Double Jump Canceling has low risks even when used improperly and DJC is a staple technique to characters who have it whereas the stall glitch is not. Again, I'll reiterate the fact that Smash Wiki has a poor reputation in the Smash Community for citing incorrect information such as labeling an inconsistent glitch as a reliable recovery technique.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:25, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

If it really is that much of a concern, we could, as I said before, warn of the dangers of the glitch and just give a passing mention of it and it's potential. 96.229.195.73 00:30, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

But you haven't refuted my original point: the risk is far far greater than the reward. I don't want this wiki feeding naive players incorrect information such as encouraging them to go for something way to risky such as this. If anything the wiki should discourage use of the technique since you will SD more times than successfully use the glitch. Do you want to tell people how to lose? If you want to change my opinion on this discussing, find me proof that the glitch can be done consistently for recovery. No, personal experience doesn't cut it since a random (most likely not competitive) player is not a reliable witness. Acceptable proof would be a technical description (using frame data) of the glitch or having the word of a well known player supporting its use. --Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:35, 12 October 2013 (EDT)

Ness's PK Thunder in Smash 4

I realize this is valid proof, BUT...I remember playing a match and watching someone fail to recover after ramming into a wall with PK Thunder. Could the video be from an earlier version of the game? Aidan the Aura Master 10:30, 4 February 2015 (EST)

From what I understand (as someone who doesn't main Ness in SSB4), I believe the wall has to be hit at a certain angle for the helpless animation to be cancelled. I'm not totally clear on the all the details, though. Miles (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2015 (EST)

The helpless animation is always cancelled temporarily, but depending on the angle Ness hits the wall with, he may rebound differently. Generally, if he doesn't ram straight into the wall, he's going to be stuck next to the wall and will most likely become helpless, especially if he's trapped in a corner where he can't activate his Up-B again. b2jammer (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2015 (EST)

Anti-edgeguard

Should anti-edgeguards be covered in the article? I think so since they're an integral part of recovering. – Smiddle 15:49, 27 December 2015 (EST)

Table format?

The table format for this page is pretty clunky visually and has a lot of wasted space for Brawl/SSB4 newcomers and the like. Would it be beneficial or not to move the text to a more standard prose layout as opposed to using a table? Miles (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

Depending on how it would be formatted, I wouldn't be against a change. The page looks pretty bad as it stands. John HUAH! 15:22, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

Honestly, on multiple occasions I have thought "I would edit this page if I didn't hate the format so much". Yes, let us please change it. A section for each character and then subsections by game would work without having to rewrite everything. Zyrac(talk•contribs) 15:53, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

I agree that the table thing is a bit ugly. I would say that we should switch it if I weren't unsure how to organize the prose. Right now we have the games side-by-side allowing for easy comparison. I don't want to lose that, and switching to prose would most likely mean that we have "In <game>" sections then bullet points for each character, meaning that the information isn't as easily comparable. Serpent King 16:25, 7 June 2017 (EDT)

Could we perhaps redo the page so that the information is presented like this and this, or would that just create additional problems? John HUAH! 17:25, 18 June 2017 (EDT)