Talk:Marth (SSB4)

Down aerial

I created a topic on Smashboards, but I think it's worth mentioning here too; Marth's down air was briefly shown during 3DS footage, and it appears to cover a far wider area than Brawl. Topic here Video here FlynnCL (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

I think that footage is too inconclusive to put that in the article. Omega Tyrant 06:55, 9 April 2014 (EDT)

Forward aerial

Forward air was clearly shown during the Direct, and it appears to cover a far greater range than the Brawl counterpart. Marth appears to suffer longer landing lag. GIF Picture FlynnCL (talk) 08:37, 10 April 2014 (EDT)

Your gif links leads to nothing (and that site in the link appears to not work properly with ad blockers on). Anyway, I looked at the video in slow motion, and yeah I noticed it (also noticed Bowser has yet another new aerial). Omega Tyrant 14:58, 10 April 2014 (EDT)

Final Smash confirmed

Critical Hit still, from the invitational. Add? Meyguhmein - talk - *FURIOUSLY FANBOYS OVER MEGAMAN* 01:37, 11 June 2014 (EDT)

Added.Qwerty the lord WOOP 01:52, 11 June 2014 (EDT)

Throws

Marth's forward/back/down throws never KO'd at realistic percentages in both Melee and Brawl. Regarding his up throw, it can KO at around 200% in both, but this does not make it practical. Marth's throws will still most likely not be very practical as KO options, and they will obviously lose a lot of followup ability, which is what made them so useful. I don't see why the throws being stronger should be listed as a buff. Scr7(talk · contribs) 15:29, 15 August 2014 (EDT)

English?

Do we know if he does? RoyboyX Talk 08:43, 14 September 2014 (EDT)

Marth's Custom Moveset

here on imgur If someone would like to add it to the page. --Jmp 531 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2014 (EDT)

Shield Breaker

I noticed that Shield Breaker, when fully charged, can KO at 80%. I'm not sure if this is a buff, but if it is, could someone add it for Marth's changes from Brawl? SuperZ8403 (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2014 (EST)

Back aerial and Down aerial's landing lag

I looked at the landing lag frame data for Marth in Smash 4. I compared it with Brawl Marth's aerial landing lag. For back aerial he has 19 frames of landing lag (went from 21 frames in Brawl to 19 frames in Smash 4), while his down aerial has 28 frames of landing lag (went from from 32 frames in Brawl to 28 frames in Smash 4). Should this be considered as a buff? 98.220.74.197 01:09, 10 November 2014 (EST)

I don't trust who made that data, given the fact that no one has actually penetrated the game files to assess the actual frame data yet. Regardless 19 frames and 28 frames of ending lag is still quite alot. I wouldn't consider those lag reductions significant buffs in the least. The maximum lag a useful aerial should have is about 10 frames. Aerial's usually don't do more than 13-15% so the average safety is -2 on block.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 22:44, 10 November 2014 (EST)

Rage mechanics

According to this smashboard and the video, when Marth is at 150%, his raged tipped forward smash was able to KO insanely early as 30% and his raged up throw KOs at 130% on most of the cast. Can someone add this for his moveset description? 98.220.74.197 16:13, 31 December 2014 (EST)

That was bad DI from Lucina's part and she was standing near the edge. Realistically, I would expect a rage mode tipper to kill at 50.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 17:22, 31 December 2014 (EST)

Marth's Range

According to this thread here, Marth's range was not nerfed. With the exception of a couple of attacks, his range was actually buffed. LimitCrown (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2015 (EST)

I explain that on the page bro. I already probed that thread in and out and then I wrote: "The change in units of distance grant Marth more disjoint relative to his hurtboxes but less reach overall. Additionally the sizes of his hitboxes have been reduced. Overall Marth's moves are less safe than they were in previous games." --Brian^{Don't try me!} 05:33, 21 January 2015 (EST)

Okay then. Although Marth's moves may have less range, isn't it misleading to say that his sword is shorter? LimitCrown (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2015 (EST)

I suppose so. But we don't know if the sword actually has a longer model. Still the sentence I wrote perfectly describes the situation.--Brian^{Don't try me!} 00:10, 22 January 2015 (EST)

Up Special Glitch

Uh... Aidan the Aura Master 16:44, 24 February 2015 (EST)

Alt. Trophy

Someone upload the Wii U alt. trophy? YoshiKong (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2015 (EST)

Weight changes

In the previous edits where the Marth's weights considered neither as a buff or a nerf but then it is a buff on a recent change. Can someone explain why it should be neither a buff or a nerf for Marth's weight change besides survivablity? I feel that Marth being slightly heavier by 3 points is not important for his survival. Since weight changes implies many thing, there is something that is considered upside or a downside. Luigi540 (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2015 (EDT)

Movement speed

So the "Changes from Brawl" paragraph mentions that Marth has slower movement, yet the section about his attributes contradicts that by saying that he's slightly faster. If I may ask, which one is correct? Personally, I think he feels about the same as he was in Brawl, but then again, Smash 4 isn't as slow, so... MeatBall104; I'm open, ladies! 15:27, 21 July 2015 (EDT)

"Subjectivity"

The only phrases that I agree with removing were things that "drove the nail in the coffin," so to speak. Phrases like "likely due to his dominance...," "none of his buffs compensate for his nerfs...," and "does not benefit from universal changes...," etc. are actually highly subjective. However, everything else in that section was fact. His ability to control space is weaker. His neutral and punish games are more inconsistent. Both of those shortcomings are explained by some of the discussed nerfs. And no, his abilities are not only "somewhat" weaker (that is a clear understatement, seeing how much Marth was nerfed in this game). Additionally, I feel that it's important to explain exactly why those are weaker, and/or explain how certain changes lead to certain weakened capabilities. --Timson622222 (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Yeah I also think the changes Miles is pushing at the moment are overkill. The game has been out for the better part of a year now; while patches keep ruining everything, things are certainly at the point where we should have a relatively concrete community consensus over the what and why of a character's high-level properties. I recall an argument somewhere on the tier list talkpage about someone being sour about Ganondorf sucking in Brawl, and wanted to rewrite his page to be "completely neutral" about him, as opposed to "accurately non-neutral". Being overly defensive about words like "worsened" is just head-up-butt bad. Toomai Glittershine The Metroid 15:39, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

I apologize for removing information in my reverts, but I want to be very clear on this subject: a neutral tone takes priority over anyone's opinion. I provided a few examples in my most recent edit of phrasings and terms to always avoid, specifically "cripple", "worsened", and "nowhere near as good". There are plenty of other examples. I would urge all users editing these pages to think about the fact that we are aiming for an encyclopedic style. We are not a SmashBoards or Reddit thread. Describing a character's abilities as "worsened" instead of "reduced in power" or the like is unnecessarily judgmental. Miles (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

I understand that, but some of these edits seem to be removing fairly neutral analysis in addition to more inflammatory things, which is a major concern to me. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 15:44, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

I agree with you that we should try to steer away from inflammatory wording, but much of the information that you initially removed was not opinion, it was fact. Sure, some of the analysis may have been tainted in subjective wording, but fixing that wording while still conveying the facts is better than outright changing the section to include nothing but bare-bones, vague-ish analysis. Yes, we are supposed to go for an encyclopedic style, but that doesn't necessarily mean we need to sugarcoat the facts (or omit some of the harsher ones) just to get across the most neutral tone possible, especially when anything tainted by opinion can be easily fixed. --Timson622222 (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

As I said, I apologize for not doing as precise of surgery on the wording as is possible. I wanted to get this point across clearly so as to resolve the debate on the section's subjectivity before backing off again. I was a bit rushed and was overly heavy-handed, and I apologize. Miles (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Well I'll rewrite it then, and we'll see if I can fix the problems people say there are. Toomai Glittershine The Awesome 16:09, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Toomai, can you also try rewriting the article to be a little more positive sounding as well? Sure Marth in Smash 4 had some terrible nerfs when transitioning from Brawl but Marth has been getting better in each patch to the point where people might be considering him as a middle tier character (like Meta Knight was awful when the game released, now ZeRo thinks he has potential of becoming a top tier). Dots (talk) The NES 16:35, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Continued subjective phrasing problems in Toomai's revision: "the buffs he received are not enough to compensate for the much more important nerfs", "drastically", "players now have to rely much more on gimmicks", "these gimmicks do not serve to aid Marth at all in competitive play", "very poor representation" (no longer accurate), "decisively". If you seriously consider your presentation as neutral in tone, you should seriously reconsider. Miles (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

I'll see if I can tweak some things. Not all of these sound too bad, but I'll see what they're like in context. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 17:51, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

I can accept the "poor representation" and "gimmick" parts being inaccurate, since I don't know for sure either way. But whether a character's nerfs outshine their buffs can been seen quite clearly in their tournament results between the two compared games. Toomai Glittershine The Emissary 17:53, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

As I put it on my talk page, we should be presenting the facts, not passing judgment. We can point out that Marth received many nerfs and explain what they are and how they hinder his gameplay compared to Melee and Brawl. But saying that he is "decisively" nerfed or "drastically" worse is where it becomes judgmental and subjective. Let the reader see the changes themselves and draw their own conclusion. As for tournament results, there were two Marths in top 32 at Super Smash Con, hence my changing it to "middling" results - present, but not a consistent top placer either. Miles (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Now having read everything sufficently, I believe that most of the changes you are proposing aren't much different than removing almost all analysis in the Attributes section. To use an example of acceptable content you used, it would be like removing the "many" in "many nerfs" because someone may think that the nerfs Marth received aren't enough to qualify as "many". Just replace quantity with intensity. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 18:03, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

I would argue that the strength of a buff/nerf is indeed a fact, at the very least whether something in particular is major or minor. Toomai Glittershine The Indescribable 18:05, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

How is it insufficient to point out Marth's nerfs and their factual results (e.g. he can't reliably follow up out of throws), have an entire changelog of color-coded buffs and nerfs, and let the reader decide for themselves how major or minor that is? Miles (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Edit summary is self explanatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.37.25.25 (talk • contribs) 18:25 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Could you whip up a draft quickly to show your plan for the section? Nyargleblargle (Talk) 18:28, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

It looks okay, aside from maybe one or two small things. Nyargleblargle (Talk) 18:35, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

What are those things? Anyway, I'm changing Attributes almost entirely to talk more about Marth and less about changes. 45.37.25.25 18:38, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

IP, your changes are horrendously opinionated. Did you even read this discussion? Miles (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

What?45.37.25.25 19:27, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

If you don't understand how "some of the biggest weaknesses in the game", "bad", "awful", "falls short quite a bit", and "leaves much to be desired" are overly opinionated, you should probably stop editing until you understand what an encyclopedic style looks like. Miles (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Woah, dude. I don't think you can tell someone to stop editing. If it is the general consensus of the community that SSB4 Marth is, well, bad (which it is), then it should be reported as such. Maybe the article goes over the top a little and needs toned down. That's fine. But we should not pass Marth off as an average character if he isn't. See Pichu. We flat out call him a joke character. We point out how flawed and awful Kirby is. Why not here? Serpent King (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

This was the sample article intending to point out how neutral tone should be implemented, so pointing out others that don't have that tone yet is kind of beside the point. And if this IP is consistently unwilling to listen to basic style advice, they shouldn't be editing. Miles (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Let's break down your criticisms: "Some of the biggest weaknesses in the game" Squash the SSBB Ganondorf page then. Seriously, his weaknesses are very glaring. "Bad, awful" Because those aspects are. "Leaves much to be desired, falls short quite a bit" So we are going to act like this is Brawl Marth then.

I know this topic is one that is a pain to talk about, but don't shove one side of something into the rug. 45.37.25.25 19:46, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

You are demonstrating a clear lack of understanding about what constitutes neutrality. What about the current page is unacceptable? That we're not outright calling him "bad and awful"? That's not a judgment we should be making, period. He was nerfed. We say so. We say how it affects his viability at a competitive level. Why is that not enough? Miles (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

I'm calling certain aspects of him "bad" and "awful". I'm acknowledging he got nerfed almost as hard as Melee Kirby. He DOES FALL SHORT OF VIABILITY HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. 45.37.25.25 19:57, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

You've now proved to me that you're not worth trying to discuss this with. If you have no interest in contributing according to appropriate wiki-style or discussing things constructively, take your time elsewhere. Miles (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Try sounding less condescending. Come on man, you're better than that. Serpent King (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

I'm getting frustrated at trying to explain my reasoning to this admin. That's what happened with my HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Anyway, Miles, how? By actually saying that Marth is a bad character (as in midlow, which is pretty generous compared to what others have to say)? I'm trying to emphasize the fact that the current metagame does not favor Marth whatsoever right now.

Kinda ironic that I got stuck in this by getting noticed by a user I wanted nothing to do with. 45.37.25.25 20:09, 10 August 2015 (EDT)

Ok this is getting ridiculous. If we ever want this debate settled, we have to come up with some compromise. For instance, I really do not see how [this] was necessary. We aren't improving the wiki here, we're just flipping a couple of words around. Serpent King (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

I agree SK, this is ridiculous and is getting frustrating. I for one am very fatigued at this. If Miles does not want my insight on a poor character's pros and cons and being as neutral as possible while not sacrificing information, his loss. 45.37.25.25 21:55, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

I am not looking for any one user's "insight". I am aiming for a clear and concise presentation of the character's attributes and changes which maintains a neutral tone. Any further changes to these sections need to adhere to this. I am tired of heavily opinionated fluff clogging these pages and will not simply sit back and allow it to get slipped back in repeatedly. Doubly so in this case, since I am trying to use this article as a "good example" of how to discuss a character in a neutral way. It's hard to present a case for improvement when you have no end-goal to point to. Miles (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

The problem is that you don't understand the character and I do. -Brian --70.214.2.18 22:17, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

I've gone out of my way to explain what opinionated language should be removed and why I think it's overly subjective or inflammatory. If "because I say so" is the only justification you can offer for your edits, I don't think I have much reason to take them seriously. Miles (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

...So you protected the page? wow. Serpent King (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

SW:PROTECT "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over. Admin powers are not editor privileges - admins should only use their powers to help assist the positive growth of the project." Protection needs removed. Serpent King (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

I am assisting the positive growth of the project. I am stating that edits to this page will require consensus. Given that I have seen no action on the part of another admin to resolve the edit dispute through protection, I attempting to moderate a discussion that I myself am part of. It is an imperfect situation to be sure, but I have no intention of removing the protection until the situation is resolved. Miles (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

And hey look, consensus so far is that you are wrong. Toomai Glittershine The Aurum 23:01, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

That does not change the fact that you have violated a policy. Serpent King (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2015 (EDT)

@Miles: Hey, idiot! Maybe no other admin attempted to resolve the dispute through protection because protection wasn't necessary? No, you just wanted to lock the changes to your preferred revision while you decided to become a brick wall while literally everyone else started explaining why your definition of a "neutral tone" does not fit the facts. if you think that "decisively nerfed" is not a fact than i'm not sure what the fuck is wrong with you. Decisively just means indisputable, and he is indisupatably nerfed, so how on Earth is that "opinionated"? Stop abusing your power and start figuring out what the fuck you're talking about. DoctorPain99 23:15, 13 August 2015 (EDT)