User talk:Ryxis

Hi there!

Welcome!

Welcome to our wiki, and thank you for your contributions! There's a lot to do around here, so I hope you'll stay with us and make many more improvements.

Read this first as it provides many great resources designed to help users get oriented with the wiki and become part of the community.

Visit the recent changes to see what other people are editing right this minute, and where you can help.

Questions? You can ask at the help desk or on the "discussion" page associated with each article, or post a message on my talk page!

Need help? The community portal has an outline of the site, and pages to help you learn how to edit.

I'm really happy to have you here, and look forward to working with you!

Awesome Cardinal 2000 08:59, 2 January 2014 (EST)

Talk to me about Pichu in PM you know you want to

Your ideas are good but here are a few extra ideas: 1. Bair remains the same so there is less clones. 2. Down-B should be Discharge and act like Wario Waft. 3. B-throw should be Pikachu's from Smash 64 4. F-throw should be Pikachu's from Smash 64. 5. Pikachu should have a nerfed thunderbolt that acts like Pichu's but has thundercloud sweetspot. We met on the Apex 2014 livestream remember? --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2014 (EST)

Yeah I do remember! :3

• I don't see how similar movesets are a problem. Pichu needs a weak back air. It doesn't have to be the same as Pikachu's but something like a Falcon bair or a Mario bair would aid in off stage play. The current bair is very laggy, and a sex kick is something that my model of Pichu doesn't have, but is crucial.
• I'm not too eager on that down special. I was trying to make Thunder be a vertical follow up, where you send the enemy up with an up tilt or an up air and then finish with a Thunder. Wario Waft is one of my least favorite moves, partially because it's a fart joke and the rest because of its unreliable, gimmicky behavior. Any move that needs to charge passively takes control away from the player and forces them to alter their playstyle to match the current parameters. It's hard to rely on that move when you only have it half of the time, and this breaks up the meta of a character with "well if you have a Discharge ready..." Also, Pichu can't use Discharge according to bulbapedia. (I don't play Pokemanz, so I'm probably wrong.)
• I've never played Smash 64, can't really comment here.
• I'm not sure what you meant on the last point. I'm for Thunder having a cloud sweetspot for Pichu in PM.

One area I'm still not sure in is how Pichu will manage to put on heavy shield pressure. It's crucial to such an offensive playstyle, otherwise you're just going to get shield grabbed constantly. None of the aerials I gave him are multihit, and multihit aerials are usually good for pressuring shield. Ryxis (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2014 (EST)

About using Pikachu's throws from Smash 64, they're both much more powerful than in Melee and Brawl; the back throw can KO most characters at under 100% and the forward throw can usually KO opponents near the edge at high percentages, or at least put them very far from the stage. The latter is also a good combo throw (i.e. it can chaingrab at very low percentages, and lead into aerials if the opponent is thrown offstage or off a platform). idk if both of these throws' high power will apply though, since throws in general were nerfed in power after Smash 64, which could include these two.

The neutral aerial you described for Pichu sounds like a great pressuring option on a shielding opponent, it could be used as a SHFFL after a dash dance near the opponent, then if the opponent remains shielded, Pichu could just retreat and dash dance near the opponent again (far enough to be out of range of their OoS options). And I find Pikachu's QACing in Brawl a great way to shield pressure, so agility cancelling could work similarly. Scr7(talk · contribs) 17:12, 20 January 2014 (EST)

The forward throw sounds nice. Puts them off stage for a gimp, and can set up edge guards? In the case of the bair, however, I'm not sure how a pure kill throw would fit into this playstyle. I'd have to test it with an edited version of Pichu. As for up and down throws, those are currently both good. They both start combos, with up throw sending higher than down throw does. Ryxis (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (EST)

Well Discharge doesnt matter since he cant learn Skull Bash. Also Pichu's bair is actually pretty good. --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2014 (EST)

You're right, his current bair isn't bad. It could probably stay, though potentially with less landing lag or lag in general. (If I recall correctly, you spin out on the ground and take forever to get up.) Also, the preview button does wonders. Ryxis (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (EST)

Also all I was saying with Discharge is that is would charge like Wario Waft. Upon using it a large electrical barrier blast would surround Pichu. And I like the idea for Pichu's Thunder BUT Pikachu Down-B needs balancing so how about if the Pikachu's bolt would hit like Pichu's BUT hitting with the cloud would hurt A LOT. --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2014 (EST)

So you're saying Pikachu's Thunder needs to be buffed? I mean, sure. It's not the best move, and it would probably make sense to put the cloud sweet spot on that move as well. Honestly, the cloud sweet spot is a little gimmicky and would probably prove very challenging to lead into.

Like I said, I don't like the concept of Wario Waft. A powerful move with passive charge isn't enjoyable or thought provoking for either the person using it, or the person having it used on them. (If you know the comparison, think of the Soda Popper from TF2.) Most of the time, the person using it is slightly worse off than they would be without that move, until they get it, at which point it becomes obnoxiously powerful. It's more random than it is skillful, as at any confrontation between players, the player could have their super powerful move, or not. It's not fun when you're stuck without a functional down special, and it's not fun when your enemy's down special is really really powerful and you can't approach because they'll set it off. Ryxis (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2014 (EST)

Btw on my page if you scroll down it a little you can see my Young Link ideas and can discuss it. --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2014 (EST)

Palettes

I'll get them up ASAP -HaotheChampion

page move

Why? - Ceci n’est pas un Smiddle. 09:30, 4 March 2014 (EST)

For the record, this discussion has essentially been had at Category talk:Disambiguation, with the arguments against being much stronger with the arguments for. - Ceci n’est pas un Smiddle. 09:32, 4 March 2014 (EST)

I was unaware that that page existed, actually. I simply saw the list of disambiguation pages, 94% of which are followed by a (disambiguation) and figured hey, that's the standard. So I moved that page to match the vast majority of them. Also, I don't know what your definition of much stronger is, but 5-0 in the voting section in favor of the (disambiguation)s doesn't seem like much stronger to me. Ryxis (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2014 (EST)

SmashWiki doesn't do simple vote counts, and after Smiddle made his posts, no one refuted him (and all the prior "votes" were done before he made his posts). Omega Tyrant 09:49, 4 March 2014 (EST)

The fact that nobody refuted him at the time doesn't necessarily mean he was correct. People were saying that consistency is irrelevant, but I strongly disagree. Encyclopedias should be organized and consistent. When a user goes to them to gather information, they should see a similar formula for similar pages (of course, to a point). That includes the title structure. Having 255 disambiguation pages on a wiki and having less than 15 of those not have a part of the title that the others do is sloppy. It doesn't look good. It seems like a mistake and it seems unprofessional. I'm indifferent as to whether they should all have the (disambiguation) or if they should all not have it. Both seem like equally valid ways to format the page. But if 240 of them have it, the remaining 15 should have it as well. Claiming that those 15 pages shouldn't have a trivial but very apparent portion of the page that the others do, simply on the guise of "consistency doesn't matter" is creating an obvious err in the wiki. There is no backing not having things be organized. Ryxis (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2014 (EST)

If anyone can make an argument for none of the disambiguation pages having the parenthetical with the exception of name conflicts, then go right ahead and change that. Having it at that minimum seems fine to me. But until then, those 15 pages are sloppy inconsistencies for no reason. They honestly do seem like a mistake. It should be at one end or the other. Hovering hesitantly and awkwardly in the middle is unprofessional. Ryxis (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2014 (EST)

Your case seems to be based on that a disambiguation page should arbitrarily be assigned this epithet in this title. A much broader rule of consistency is not to have redundant titles, which we would break by practising this.

I'm indifferent as to whether they should all have the (disambiguation) or if they should all not have it. Both seem like equally valid ways to format the page.

We will add the tag when it's needed, otherwise it shouldn't be there. The fact that a few pages need it is in no way reason to arbitrarily title other disambiguation page a similar way. We have Starman (item) but not Capsule (item) or Smash Ball (item), which makes it obvious why the "consistency" argument is invalid - there simply isn't any reason for the article title to give any information on the make-up of the article, when the article itself makes a perfectly fine job doing this. - Ceci n’est pas un Smiddle. 10:45, 4 March 2014 (EST)

@Ryxis: There's no need for us to be OCD for the sake of being OCD. It's best to use disambiguation when there is a page already with the name in question. (See Wikipedia:Batman and Wikipedia:Batman (disambiguation), but no page uses the title "invisibility" by itself, so tacking on (disambiguation) is unnecessary. FluffyDP 10:51, 4 March 2014 (EST)

Also Wikipedia:Link is clearly a disambiguation page but does not have (disambiguation) in the title. FluffyDP 10:55, 4 March 2014 (EST)