User talk:Nightgengale

.

I assume good faith...

...but so far, your edits on character pages return edits to how they originally looked in the first place. Most notably Kirby's and Zelda's page. I'd like to tell you, I had wrote Kirby's page so it is similar to Diddy Kong's page in that he was significantly nerfed but now is slightly nerfed (which is the contrary with Diddy), but you undid my edit when the other one looked better. And while she can be considered to be nerfed, Zelda did gain some useful buffs that can counter her nerfs, and I consider the Phantom to be one of them. But that's not all. You have undone edits on her page several times, particularly her changes from Brawl, which risks you of violating this policy: it reads "Such revisions should be used only once." I'm just informing you so you don't get warned by an admin to stop.

I do think you try to do a good job but your edits sometimes look bad. Try to let other users help you edit "accurate reports on characters", so that the wiki looks better. In the case of Zelda, we could consider she was nerfed but as she has gained useful buffs as well, she shouldn't really be considered nerfed. And in the case of Kirby, he is nerfed from transition, but only slightly nerfed when we take into account balance patches. Whaddya say? Would you like me to help? (keep in mind I'm backed up by popular opinion from the community). Again, I assume good faith, so no worries in my side. --BeepYou (talk) 13:25, 3 December 2015 (EST)

I'd also like to bring this up. I'm not saying Dedede wasn't nerfed, I'm saying Dedede underwent a severe Falco case. I'd also like what others have to say, but I'm pretty sure my version is up-to-date, not speculative and less subjective. Drill Blaster Mark 2 (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2015 (EST)

Tournament results don't solely determine how good a character is.Chliu (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2015 (EST)

True...BUT tournament results are a reliable indicator of how good or bad a character is. For many characters, the problem isn't that no one plays them, the problem is that they often lose to characters with better frame data like Sheik. So people slowly start dropping them. The small amount of tournament representation and results that they have goes away as time goes by. So Tournament results do show how good or bad a character is, though yes, other factors do matter.Nightgengale (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2015 (EST)

So Ness loses to Shiek, therefore he is bad and people will slowly start dropping him. Chliu (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2015 (EST)

Most (if not all) characters have at least one even or bad matchup. its HOW MANY bad or good matchups a character has that matters. ONE bad matchup doesn't make a character bad. I never said or implied that, so I think its safe to say that you're trolling.Nightgengale (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2015 (EST)

I wouldn't call it trolling, matchups in tournaments in my opinion is very subjective, for example, some people may say a character is bad just because they have a bad matchup to Sheik, while others would say otherwise. It's more of a 'which is more widely agreed upon' and the number of matchups is the most agreed upon method. Hope this helps. Disaster Flare (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2015 (EST)

You do realize that almost every character has a bad matchup against Sheik right? Melee's Fox is the same way. Matchups and Tournament results are important, and are helpful when it comes to determining how rewarding a character is and whether or not they're worth picking up or not.Nightgengale (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2015 (EST)

Yes I am quite familiar with that aspect, I was merely using Sheik as an example, and I'm not denying that tournament results are important, I'm just saying that no matter what, what Chliu was saying was not trolling. Disaster Flare (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2015 (EST)

Let's agree to dis...actually, I agree with you now 100%...what have you done to me O.oNightgengale (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2015 (EST)

People say I'm very good at these kinds of discussions so. XD Disaster Flare (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2015 (EST)

Fox (SSB4)

Again, Larry Lurr is the best player in SoCal (winning most of the tournaments over there) and one of the best North American players in general, GrimTurtle is the best player in Houston, Texas (winning most of the tournaments over there, including against Trela), MegaFox is the best player in Texas overall (again, winning most of the tournaments over there... and had a very recent win over the likes of Dabuz), and Feel Tension and Snow have been placing well in MD/VA for a while. I don't see how Fox is doing worse overall than he did in Brawl... the only North American Fox in Brawl with several wins over top players is TKD, and the best Japanese Fox in Brawl, Yui, barely won any tournaments over there. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2015 (EST)

We're clearly on the wrong page. First, notice how I changed the portion stating that he was nerfed in terms of frame data ONLY. That's oversimplfiying the nerfs. I didn't change his standing to the cast statement. So why are you so edgy? Second, it's commonly excepted that fox was nerfed, but benefits so much from the general changes in Smash 4 that he ends up better relative to the cast. You throw results in my face (which is good in a way, i'm glad he has results) when I'm not accusing him of not having results anymore. He's just slightly weaker then his Brawl incarnation. Third, I stated that "He is lighter, and the removal of hitstun canceling makes him even easier to combo and worsens his endurance." Why was this valuable information removed? It should stay there. Fourth, you never actually explained what high tier is, so i'm assuming it means high-mid tier since top tier is a different title. In that case, Fox's standing may be debatable. Fifth, really we should be talking at the discussion page. I'm surprised you messaged me here instead of there.Nightgengale (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2015 (EST)

1. Saying that he was objectively nerfed overall implies that he's worse in standing in Smash 4 than in comparison to his standing in Brawl (as in, it makes it seem as if he does worse in Smash 4 than he does in Brawl, which is false). So yes, I believe it should specifically refer to it as such.

2. That's exactly what I was referring to as well. This is the main reason why I'm confused as to why you're removing the "frame data" part.

3. I reverted it as part of my previous edit, so that was my bad.

4. "High tier" is the tier right below "top tier"... so no, I didn't mean "high-mid tier".

I think we've just had a miscommunication regarding this, but hopefully this clears up my side. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2015 (EST)

Yeah, it does.Nightgengale (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2015 (EST)

I'm sorry if I'm getting in the way, but "tier lists aren't still official", as stated by the admins. So while I do see him as a high-tier character too, that information should be replaced.... which I already did. -- The 70's called. They said BeepYou was here :v 22:14, 12 December 2015 (EST)

I know SmashWiki emphasizes the importance of factual information...

However, I've looked at your user page and discussion, and I'm not pleased with what I observed. From what it looks like, you try to shut down anyone who doesn't share the same thoughts as you do, and when it comes to a small divide between opinions (i.e. Lucas or Fox in Smash 4), if it isn't your opinion, you flat out tell them "no, you're wrong" or "be reasonable". People have tried to explain that you don't need to brazen like this, but you don't seem to be taking anyone's advice to heart, as you continue to fall back into said behaviors. With that said, I urge you not to be so aggressive towards opinions from here on. 15DollarsWentSouth 15:10, 16 January 2016 (EST)