Talk:Wavedash
In Brawl, it's possible. I've done it.
- Double Jump
- fall backwards at the diagonal
- Air Dodge near the bottom
takes forever, and it honestly isn't practical. But it is still in. User:Max2/Sig
really? I thought Wavelanding just made you land on a jump-through platform faster. User:Max2/Sig sorry then.
"Contrary to some belief, wavedashing is not a glitch, but instead is completely explainable by the physics system in the game, despite being an unintended physics byproduct."
Unfortunatly I have to disagree with this statment because a completely explainable by the physics system in the game, despite being an unintended physics byproduct, is the very definition of a glitch because the result was unintended thus yes, this is a glitch.
By your defininition Windows never has glitches all of the behaviour is perfectly explainable behaviour based on how the code was written, the result wasn't inteneded but it was the natural result.
70.57.50.190 10:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wavedashing is NOT a glitch!
A glitch is an error in programing. It has no real explanation on why it happens. Samus' Super Wavedash and Link's Super jump are glitches.
Wavedashing however has an explanation on why it happens. The sudden momentum from an airdodge is transfered to the ground, causing a slide. That is part of the physics engine. If a character is spiked to the ground diagonally, their body will slide a bit. Even happens in Brawl.
The developers programmed the slide, but they didn't think it would give any advantage, so they left it in Melee. This would make Wavedashing a physics exploit at best.
STOP CALLING WAVEDASHING A GLITCH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaXzero (talk • contribs) 20:43, June 19, 2008 Unintended=glitch. - Gargomon251 (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he's right. Wavedashing is a necessary byproduct of the game physics engine and is not a glitch. It can be calculated based on momentum and traction and falls directly into the normal programing. The definition of a glitch is something that cannot be explained by the programing of the game. Therefore, wavedashing is not a glitch. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 05:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- By the very definition of a deterministic machine, every single aspect of a game can be somehow explained by its programming, even something like the super wavedash, so this definition of "glitch" is wishful thinking. Any behavior which deviates from the indented is a glitch. --Nknk (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Couple problems with that last statement. (A) How do you determine intent? (B) That's not the right definition of a glitch; a glitch is some malfunction of game programming. Wavedashing is not a malfunction, but rather a byproduct of the use of programmed and correctly functioning elements (C) Everything can be explained by the programming, but unless you're looking at the code and you find something that actual programmers couldn't, there's no basis on which you can make that judgment. Semicolon (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- (A) How do you determine intent?
- Only the original developers can, of course. And this is exactly why wavedashing is such a debated feature: some think it was intentional, some think it was accidental. Ever heard "it's not a bug, it's a feature"? This describes the conflict of expectations between the developer and the user.
- (B) That's not the right definition of a glitch; a glitch is some malfunction of game programming.
- You are just saying the same thing, really. How do you define "malfunction"? Yeah, one thing malfunctions when it behaves differently from what it was originally intended. Even when one just wants to hurt others, a gun does not "malfunction" when it kills people, because that was its original intention. No matter how one intended to use it, the weapon was designed to be lethal, so it might be an accident on the shooter's part, but it's not a malfunction.
- Wavedashing is not a malfunction, but rather a byproduct of the use of programmed and correctly functioning elements
- The interaction between several "correctly functioning" individual elements can still produce incorrect function. The code to Jigglypuff's final smash was presumably supposed to be correctly functioning. The code which cancels movements due to landscape changes was also supposed to be correctly functioning. But the particular interaction between these two on a certain timing was not originally foreseen, and the result is now known as Gigaluff.
- (C) Everything can be explained by the programming, but unless you're looking at the code and you find something that actual programmers couldn't, there's no basis on which you can make that judgment.
- As I said: the final judgement whether something is a bug or not lies on who defined the original expectations. Sometimes it's very easy to guess whether they were intended or not — applications crashing and freezing, for example, are quite "obviously" unintended. Other times it's not so intuitive — it might be counter-intuitive, even (say, a certain application might want to purposefully crash on some very rare scenarios). Judging by all the discussion that goes over it, wavedashing is an example of an unintuitive aspect, where it's not easy to know if it was intended/desired or not. --Nknk (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Couple problems with that last statement. (A) How do you determine intent? (B) That's not the right definition of a glitch; a glitch is some malfunction of game programming. Wavedashing is not a malfunction, but rather a byproduct of the use of programmed and correctly functioning elements (C) Everything can be explained by the programming, but unless you're looking at the code and you find something that actual programmers couldn't, there's no basis on which you can make that judgment. Semicolon (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I myself have read somewhere that wavedashing was put in on purpose. - Amycats2 (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
from what i understood, wavedashing was intended to be a technique explained in the manual, but the way it looks just seems glitchy. Kperfekt722 (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- There's no way the developers intentioned on a technique which allows some characters to move faster even than their normal run. That's my opinion. Zixor (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Again wavedash is a physics exploit. A glitch is an error in programming. The slide from an airdodge is part of the physics. They didn't intend for this to be a technique, so its a exploit, NOT a glitch.
Sakurai even admitted back in April that he knew about it in Melee before release as well (google the interview and paste the link someone). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaXzero (talk • contribs) 03:21, November 14, 2008
http://wowriot.gameriot.com/blogs/Get-Your-Tournament/Report-Sakurai-knew-about-wavedashing-took-it-out-to-even-the-playing-field here's a link... Friedbeef1 Screech 03:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- MetaXzero, if you have no knowledge in either software development or project management, it'd help if you didn't start making things up.
- Regarding your claim on the interview, I found this: [1], where the following is quoted:
- Sakurai: Of course, we noticed that you could do that during the development period.
- Pay attention to the word "noticed". You don't "notice" things you just intentionally created. You won't see Sakurai saying "yeah, I noticed Mario was a playable character". This quote actually settles for once the fact that it was an unintended behavior.
- Then, if it was unintended, why didn't they "fix" it? Because they had limited resources. Fixing it is probably not a five-minute task, and it's not very wise to waste time on it when, say, half the moves of a character are not working. If you think programs are only released when they have no bugs, you couldn't be further from the truth: it's nearly impossible to fix every single known issue in a sufficiently large system. There were over 50,000 known bugs (not counting the ones which were reported but not acknowledged by the developers) in the Mozilla code base back in June, some of them almost ten years old, but somehow that didn't stop them from releasing Firefox 3. And like Sakurai said, it didn't have a very high priority (but since it had one to begin with, it means he'd take it off if he had the time, proving then that not only it wasn't intended, but it wasn't desired either).
- And finally, regarding your weasel words for "it's part of the physics", I'll repeat: computers are deterministic machines. That means every aspect of software is a consequence of its mechanics, intended or not. Yes, even Gigaluff is a byproduct of the game's mechanics. You can't justify anything by that. --Nknk (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
