Talk:Wolf (SSBU): Difference between revisions
Omega Tyrant (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
::I do agree that most of the smashers here should be removed. However, ''Ultimate''{{'}}s competitive scene is much more bigger than ''Smash 4''{{'}}s during the early metagame, apparent in that about 9 ''Ultimate'' tournaments had more attendees than the largest ''Smash 4'' tournament within the first month of each, not to mention that there has been much more national tournaments in ''Ultimate'' than in ''Smash 4'' in a 2-month period. I honestly don't see a problem with adding the more significant players for each character (the ones that have won a major tournament with that character, those who helped develop the metagame), especially since the metagame had developed faster than ''Smash 4'', but if we have to I'm not against removing all other, less important, smashers. [[User:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color: red;">SugarCookie</span></span>]] [[User talk:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color: green;">420</span></span>]] 10:57, 13 February 2019 (EST) | ::I do agree that most of the smashers here should be removed. However, ''Ultimate''{{'}}s competitive scene is much more bigger than ''Smash 4''{{'}}s during the early metagame, apparent in that about 9 ''Ultimate'' tournaments had more attendees than the largest ''Smash 4'' tournament within the first month of each, not to mention that there has been much more national tournaments in ''Ultimate'' than in ''Smash 4'' in a 2-month period. I honestly don't see a problem with adding the more significant players for each character (the ones that have won a major tournament with that character, those who helped develop the metagame), especially since the metagame had developed faster than ''Smash 4'', but if we have to I'm not against removing all other, less important, smashers. [[User:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color: red;">SugarCookie</span></span>]] [[User talk:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color: green;">420</span></span>]] 10:57, 13 February 2019 (EST) | ||
:::The size of the tournies are irrelevant, early results are still from in a very undeveloped and volatile meta well before the game's final patched form, and will be irrelevant in a short timeframe; for example who cared much about the Smash 4 results at Apex 2015 less than a year later? Additionally, two months at any point is a very narrow timeframe to be judging anyone "historically significant" off of, hell regional PRs take a longer timeframe than that to be determined. And to go back to my Nietono the Greninja main example to show how early game results are not reflective of historical significance; in early Smash 4 during the 3DS days he was the most prolific player of a perceived top tier that placed very well at the big Japanese tournaments at the time and even won one, then patch 1.0.4 (and the Wii U version) dropped and nerfed Greninja, after which he then never touched Greninja again and was a Sheik main by Apex 2015 a couple months later, while most people now probably didn't even know he was the top Greninja main at one point (even the very loose notable players sections here don't have him listed on Greninja's Smash 4 page). <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 11:32, 13 February 2019 (EST) | :::The size of the tournies are irrelevant, early results are still from in a very undeveloped and volatile meta well before the game's final patched form, and will be irrelevant in a short timeframe; for example who cared much about the Smash 4 results at Apex 2015 less than a year later? Additionally, two months at any point is a very narrow timeframe to be judging anyone "historically significant" off of, hell regional PRs take a longer timeframe than that to be determined. And to go back to my Nietono the Greninja main example to show how early game results are not reflective of historical significance; in early Smash 4 during the 3DS days he was the most prolific player of a perceived top tier that placed very well at the big Japanese tournaments at the time and even won one, then patch 1.0.4 (and the Wii U version) dropped and nerfed Greninja, after which he then never touched Greninja again and was a Sheik main by Apex 2015 a couple months later, while most people now probably didn't even know he was the top Greninja main at one point (even the very loose notable players sections here don't have him listed on Greninja's Smash 4 page). <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 11:32, 13 February 2019 (EST) | ||
::::I mean, that's why I believe that those who have contributed significantly to the metagame should at least be listed. Also, the example with Nietono is different in this scenario, as the 3DS competitive scene is practically non-existent and no one really uses those tournament results in notable player descriptions. Even after the nerfs to Sheik, he still had her as a co-main, right? [[User:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman"><span style="color: red;">SugarCookie</span></span>]] [[User talk:SugarCookie420|<span style="font-family:Impact"><span style="color: green;">420</span></span>]] 11:38, 13 February 2019 (EST) |
Revision as of 11:38, February 13, 2019
Wolf's Voice Actor
I've seen alot of changes being made to who Wolf's voice actor is. So far it's went from Ja Green to Mike West. Now it says Jay Ward voices him. Do we have a definitive answer to this? Dakota 952 01:24, 17 January 2019 (EST)
The voice director for Starlink says Wolf is Jay Ward, and they got Fox and Wolf mixed up, which explains why some thought it was Mike West at first. Mike West also says the Jay Ward is Wolf in Starlink. WolfBloodSpam (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2019 (EST) WolfBloodSpam (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2019 (EST)
It's Jay Ward. According to this at least https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/video-games/Super-Smash-Bros-Ultimate/Wolf-ODonnell/ Wolff (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2019 (EST)
Notable players
Why does Wolf's section have 20+ names? The game hasn't even been out for 6 months and there are players listed whose best achievements are placing 49th or having them as a "strong secondary". PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2019 (EST)
- For the notable players section, me and Aidan agreed that GENESIS 6 was probably the best place to start the "notable players" section especially since 1. the game had been out for 2 months and 2. GENESIS 6 was the first supermajor. As for the 20+ names... I wasn't the one who added them. Definitely remove most of the non-notable ones. SugarCookie 420 07:31, 13 February 2019 (EST)
- I'm still iffy on having a notable players' section this early in the game's lifespan, but I'm willing to let it slide for now. My primary issue is with the sheer length of names, because "a strong Wolf secondary" and "49th at x tournament" are blatantly not as good as "5th at GENESIS 6". PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (EST)
- I mean, feel free to remove smashers who you don't think is notable enough. I already removed some. SugarCookie 420 07:40, 13 February 2019 (EST)
- I'm still iffy on having a notable players' section this early in the game's lifespan, but I'm willing to let it slide for now. My primary issue is with the sheer length of names, because "a strong Wolf secondary" and "49th at x tournament" are blatantly not as good as "5th at GENESIS 6". PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (EST)
I'm of the thought that these "notable players" sections shouldn't even exist until at least something like six months have passed, early results are going to be irrelevant really soon and patches + DLC means much of these players will probably not even use the character longterm. We went through this with Smash 4, and how many of the players that were flooded in those super early "notable players" sections were actually worth a damn with their claimed character some more months in? (For example, does anyone remember Nietono the Greninja main?)
Then in general, as one of the people who originally got these sections created, I always intended these sections to be for "historically significant" players of the character (i.e. for the players with the absolute best results or who otherwise was a primary innovator), as a section of just notable players is pretty redundant when we already got a category for every notable player of the character, and thus always disliked the trend of these sections getting so bloated with every player from a somewhat known region or who once placed well at a major. So under that metric, even if these sections are valid to have at this point, much more strict scrutiny should be applied and we shouldn't be putting everybody here who got a good placing at one major nor every top player who touched the character a few times. I honestly wouldn't put anyone in Wolf's yet other than arguably Zackray, who will certainly at least go down as a primary innovator if his results drop or he drops Wolf in the near future. Omega Tyrant 09:30, 13 February 2019 (EST)
- Actually, SugarCookie, what I said was it was a guesstimate. What I made clear was that these sections should not exist yet. I am fully in agreement with OT, because this game has been out for two months, and there is little basis to go off of to say that anyone has a strong history with any character in this game. Hbox is considered a strong Jigglypuff player in Melee because he's been playing her for years. ZeRo is considered a strong Diddy Kong/Sheik player in Smash 4 because he played them for basically the entire duration of the game's (limited) lifespan. We cannot make such judgement calls in this game. Aidan, the Lovely Rurouni 10:34, 13 February 2019 (EST)
- I do agree that most of the smashers here should be removed. However, Ultimate's competitive scene is much more bigger than Smash 4's during the early metagame, apparent in that about 9 Ultimate tournaments had more attendees than the largest Smash 4 tournament within the first month of each, not to mention that there has been much more national tournaments in Ultimate than in Smash 4 in a 2-month period. I honestly don't see a problem with adding the more significant players for each character (the ones that have won a major tournament with that character, those who helped develop the metagame), especially since the metagame had developed faster than Smash 4, but if we have to I'm not against removing all other, less important, smashers. SugarCookie 420 10:57, 13 February 2019 (EST)
- The size of the tournies are irrelevant, early results are still from in a very undeveloped and volatile meta well before the game's final patched form, and will be irrelevant in a short timeframe; for example who cared much about the Smash 4 results at Apex 2015 less than a year later? Additionally, two months at any point is a very narrow timeframe to be judging anyone "historically significant" off of, hell regional PRs take a longer timeframe than that to be determined. And to go back to my Nietono the Greninja main example to show how early game results are not reflective of historical significance; in early Smash 4 during the 3DS days he was the most prolific player of a perceived top tier that placed very well at the big Japanese tournaments at the time and even won one, then patch 1.0.4 (and the Wii U version) dropped and nerfed Greninja, after which he then never touched Greninja again and was a Sheik main by Apex 2015 a couple months later, while most people now probably didn't even know he was the top Greninja main at one point (even the very loose notable players sections here don't have him listed on Greninja's Smash 4 page). Omega Tyrant 11:32, 13 February 2019 (EST)
- I mean, that's why I believe that those who have contributed significantly to the metagame should at least be listed. Also, the example with Nietono is different in this scenario, as the 3DS competitive scene is practically non-existent and no one really uses those tournament results in notable player descriptions. Even after the nerfs to Sheik, he still had her as a co-main, right? SugarCookie 420 11:38, 13 February 2019 (EST)
- The size of the tournies are irrelevant, early results are still from in a very undeveloped and volatile meta well before the game's final patched form, and will be irrelevant in a short timeframe; for example who cared much about the Smash 4 results at Apex 2015 less than a year later? Additionally, two months at any point is a very narrow timeframe to be judging anyone "historically significant" off of, hell regional PRs take a longer timeframe than that to be determined. And to go back to my Nietono the Greninja main example to show how early game results are not reflective of historical significance; in early Smash 4 during the 3DS days he was the most prolific player of a perceived top tier that placed very well at the big Japanese tournaments at the time and even won one, then patch 1.0.4 (and the Wii U version) dropped and nerfed Greninja, after which he then never touched Greninja again and was a Sheik main by Apex 2015 a couple months later, while most people now probably didn't even know he was the top Greninja main at one point (even the very loose notable players sections here don't have him listed on Greninja's Smash 4 page). Omega Tyrant 11:32, 13 February 2019 (EST)
- I do agree that most of the smashers here should be removed. However, Ultimate's competitive scene is much more bigger than Smash 4's during the early metagame, apparent in that about 9 Ultimate tournaments had more attendees than the largest Smash 4 tournament within the first month of each, not to mention that there has been much more national tournaments in Ultimate than in Smash 4 in a 2-month period. I honestly don't see a problem with adding the more significant players for each character (the ones that have won a major tournament with that character, those who helped develop the metagame), especially since the metagame had developed faster than Smash 4, but if we have to I'm not against removing all other, less important, smashers. SugarCookie 420 10:57, 13 February 2019 (EST)