Talk:Weight/Archive 1

Does anybody have a weight listing for the original Super Smash Bros.? – MaskedMarth ^{(t c)} 21:43, November 16, 2007 (EST)

I could I still have my SSB, but I don't know where to find the weight.--Fandangox 21:46, November 16, 2007 (EST)

Brawl Weights

This page could use updating. Is there a list like this out there for Brawl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.4.29 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 11 March 2008 (EST)

it's been stated multiple times that jigglypuff is the lightest character in brawl. Carbonkirby 14:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The Brawl weights seem off, I've read on other pages that Squirtle is heavier than Ivysaur, so I went to final destination using Mario's side smash on Pokemon Trainer at 45%, and sure enough Ivysaur did fly farther, but then this page disagrees.

Sign your comments. Any way, I don't think Ivysaur weighs less, it could just be that it is floatier, which makes sense since squirtle has superior air speed. Ivysaur is heavier, squirtle is lighter. That's all.--Oxico (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Type Dissivatage. It's been Proven. Nintendofan146 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Organization

I really think there needs to be more groupings than simple "heavy, medium, light". It's hardly fair to put Link in the same weight class as Bowser. didn't there used to be at least 5 weight classes? Personally I think 8 would be better, that makes even groups and they are more similar in weight. I notice that Bowser, DK, Dedede, and possibly Snake and Charizard make the screen shake when they hit the ground at terminal velocity, although this may be more related to fall speed....either way, I may just put some more divisions in a few days if nobody objects. - Gargomon251 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Why put them in weight classes anyways, listing them 1-39 is easier imo... and when did the weight scale get completely moved around? Snake bumped from 3 to 9?

I like the current system, because almost all the rankings put down are from character pages, and coming up with names for 8 different weight rankings would be hard. --Oxico (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Remove the weight class and change all the information about weight in the character pages. - Timothyung (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that a command? I am sorry, but I don't take orders from people who don't even have user pages. Let's put it to a vote: Support or Against.--Oxico (talk)

Support- It's just a suggestion...sorry for that. Let's start voting. - Timothyung (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Against the system we have is good JtM =^] (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Against of course...and who changed the system? The current one was fine and based of off various sources!--Oxico (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Against. And by the way, I came here hoping to find if Falco has any decent weaknesses. MasterKnight (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Melee Table

What happened to the big fancy, table with the poison metal giant, etc. weights too? or was it not that necassary? Smorekingxg456 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only was it not necessary, but unfair that only melee got such a large and complex table.--Oxico (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Finally we can agree on something! That dumb table was a waste of space. --Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, that table was fantastic. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all information related to smash. Unfortunately, much of our information has been based either on subjective views (which are to be expected in this kind of wiki) based on anecdotal evidence at best. This table was one of the best examples of how to show comparisons between character weights. As for it being "unfair" that Melee was the only game that had one, that was the only one that had been researched. If someone could produce another table of statistics like that for the other games, we would show it. Maybe I'll look into it, but things are pretty busy right now, what with me moving in two days. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 03:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, when was that deleted?? I have to pay more attention to these sorts of articles. --RJM ^Talk 02:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted at 23:44, 11 August 2008 by Blue Ninjakoopa I liked having the table and I don't think there's a "fair" or "not fair" when comes to non-user articles Smorekingxg456 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

All who agree with my version of the page

C'mon, my version makes more since. Sign your name below here if you're on the cool side. --Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What is "your version"? I don't like it as it is right now, having only three weight divisions overgeneralizes. I'd rather have MORE divisions, or NONE. - Gargomon251 (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it changed right after I logged in. This is fine, but the "light" category seems a little full...are these based on calculated weights? - Gargomon251 (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are. --Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but even if it is "cool", but holds no support for the wiki, then it doesn't belong. I personally like this revision, as it strongly resembles the old one. (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 02:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Don't hate on me because of my username. --Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, your weight rankings weren't even correct from the git-go (Samus is heavier than Ganondorf in both Melees) and made no mention of the weight difference between PAL and NTSC. You don't really need weight "classes" because the game isn't played based on weight class and the only thing that matters is your characters weight RELATIVE to your opponent in a given match. I mean, it's great that you can call Pichu "light" and DK "heavy" but having accurate, mathematically-calculated weight rankings is about as unbiased as you're gonna get--and the information is more useful to boot! These should be simple numerical lists, I feel. However, if you insist on breaking it out into weight categories, can we at least not have BIG section headers? It overemphasizes the importance of labeling the characters with a weight class. --RJM ^Talk 02:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC) :Fuck you!!!

--Blue Ninjakoopa (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, okay. That makes sense. (?) --RJM ^Talk 07:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, grow up. (Personal attack striked). Old revision please? (Wolf O'Donnell (talk · contributions) 07:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC))