Talk:Fox (SSBB)/Archive 1
Role in the subspace...
Hey guys! I'm new at this but I thought I'd let you know but I've seen this video on youtube (yeah I know I was board) where fox spikes (I'm pretty sure) someone hanging on a ledge using his Dair (near the end of the clip) but I wasn't sure so I wanted you guys to check it out. I think it should go under pros, as it has much more knock back on the first hit than his melee incarnation and it can be used to Edgeguard and edgehog which I think is a big plus.
So I guess I just add it in here is evidence of where I saw the 'spike': zFtMNErjeAk --Pyrofox 16:16, March 7, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrofox (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is a meteor smash. However, if you watch, it doesn't appear very powerful. That Pikachu could have easily recovered if he did it correctly. AND he was at 170%+ when he was hit. The move has been a (weak) meteor smash in all three games though, so this isn't really news. --Wildfire393 17:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Some people must really hate Fox. In the Cons section, people are just putting the same idea under different bullets, I mean come on, Lacking K.O. moves and fairly weak moves are the same thing! --Pyrofox —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrofox (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Is Fox really nerfed in Brawl? If anything, I believe he's improved. His falling speed has slowed down a little, making recoveries easier. He can also SHTL now instead of just doing a SHDL. Also, he's not as overpowered anymore, so he's more fair. Here's to Fox's success in Brawl! - GalaxiaD (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
OK all who are willing. I need lots of help. I need all the moveset to look all alike. I need people willing to help! If you choose to accept this challenge, use Meta Knight's moveset as a perfect example. If you want to help the cause, leave your username under the category on my userpage called "Recruiting". This message is also there. Let's fix these movesets. --Oxico (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I made sure when I created Fox's moveset to include the damage percentages for all of his attacks. Unless the damage each attack deals isn't considered anything important, the other movesets should follow this format. --Schewe (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
0 to death?
"His vulnerability against 0-death chain-grabs" explanation please,who has a 0 to death chain grab on fox besides the ice climbers infinite?~gig~
- Pikachu can 0-death Fox with his down throw chain throw. Also as I said in your previous posts, sign your comments. Omega Tyrant 04:42, 9 October 2010 (EDT)
then shouldnt it just say pikachus 0 to death chain grab,the way its worded now makes it seem like more than one character has a 0 to death on fox ~gig~
- Probably, though Sheik's f-tilt lock can cause massive damage on Fox I believe. I'll go reword it. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. If you want to be known as gig, make an account. Omega Tyrant 04:57, 9 October 2010 (EDT)
last time i signed my post i was blocked by someone called clarinet hawk or something despite not having done anything wrong,at least not intentionaly,and i was brand new to the site,still am,and the reason given was "youre horrible,go away" and i returned once my ban was over and attempted to erase everything i posted and everything that was said in response to it and yet it was restored,so i was blocked for what i posted and yet when i tried to delete it it was brought back,if youre curious to what it was,it was on the meta knight(SSBB)talk page,pertaining to the pit vs meta knight section,speaking of which that entire talk page seems to be filled with unecessary banter and most of it should be deleted
- You don't remove talk page content. Simple as that. You were not blocked for signing. You were blocked for other reasons. You still sign with ~~~~, because if you don't, you can get blocked by that.--MegaTron1XD 21:49, 9 October 2010 (EDT)
been doing some testing,turns out pikachus down throw 0 to death chaingrab is no longer a 0 to death if you set the damage ratio to 1.1 or higher,it becomes a regular chaingrab at 1.1 and no longer a chain grab any higher than that,this is true for the majority of chain grabs,most no longer become chain grabs at 1.2 and barely a chain grab at all at 1.1 with the exception of dedede's,should this be added on fox's trivia?Gig (talk) 05:22, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
- No, because 1.0 is the standard damage ratio and it is rather obvious that chain throws and combos will become less effective or even ineffective at higher damage ratios. It is just the natural effect of messing with the damage ratio and nothing notable. Omega Tyrant 08:30, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
brawl plays best at a 1.2 damage ratio setting,both competitively and non competitive,it removes the unfair advantage that is chain grabs on all the heavy weights and fast fallers and makes KOing in general less of a hassle which has always been one of the complaints among smashers in relation to brawl,if the majority of combos and hitstun have been removed the best alternative is improving the killing power of all attacks,with a 1.2 damage ratio setting smash attacks can actually kill effectively without needing to be charged and having very high damage,and throws that couldnt KO now have some KOing potential without needing to be at ridiculous percents and it improves edgeguarding significantly since the greater knockback makes it far more difficult for characters to make it back on stage specially at higher percents,this should be mentioned in at least the article pertaining to damage ratio if no mention of it is going in fox's pageGig (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
- Do realise that it's your opinion that a damage ratio of "1.2" is the best to use and not what is actually practised. For people that do play competitively, they agree on a damage ratio of 1.0, and that has been the standard since the beginning. The competitive community also has no problems with chain throws in both Melee and Brawl, not deeming them to be unfair and to just be another part of the game. As such, we do not allow trivia on this Wiki based on the rules that one individual plays with, and what I mentioned in my last post stands. There are many flaws that comes with increasing the damage ratio (one such is attacks with high base knockback instead of knocback scaling gaining much more KO power from an increase in damage ratio), but it would be best for you and for everyone else for me to not argue that against you, and I am not in a mood to do so. Now, there is no trivia being included in the article about this and any attempt to put it in the article will be reverted. Also, please try to use proper grammar and punctuation in your posts, it is more difficult than it should be to understand you. Omega Tyrant 12:02, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
rules change,holding on to melee standards for brawl is foolish,and in brawl chain grabs and locks can completely remove any hope of victory in some matchups such as fox vs pikachu or sheik vs ganondorf thus they are indeed unfair and chain grabs in general are unecessary and require little to no skill to pull of,1.2 damage ratio makes the game significantly more balanced and if pros cared more about competitive equality and not easy victorys theyd probably agree too,but the majority of "pro" smashers would exploit any cheap method that would grant them an easy victory and lack any real competitive spirit which is usually why theyre against banning infinites of any sort,no matter how ridiculously easy and unfair it might be,it should at least be mentioned in the damage ratio article that setting the DR in brawl to 1.2 removes the majority of chain grabs,simply because it is a fact and thats what the wiki exists for,giving people the factsGig (talk) 12:30, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
- You're still not realising that this is your own opinion and is not fact while having no empirical backing. Just because you think it is more balanced doesn't mean it is (again, I can provide all the crap that would come with a higher damage ratio, but I won't as it doesn't even belong on this page and I suggest you don't provoke me). I highly suggest you read the works of David Sirlin, the concept of "cheap" and "takes no skill" doesn't exist. While you and other players that make up these self limiting rules in your heads that consider chain throwing "cheap", other players do not, and they do not need to follow rules you mentally restrict yourself with. I would also like to remind you that no matchups are impossible, especially the ones you mentioned. Foxes have, and will continue to get by the d-throw 0-death and defeat Pikachus. Ganondorfs will continue to get by the f-tilt lock, and defeat Sheiks (also, Sheik is far from Ganondorf's worst). If a player can't get by a chain throw, then it is their own fault and shouldn't whine about it being "cheap" or "unfair". Now, I already mentioned two posts ago why it's a terrible idea to include trivia based on damage ratio. Since you seemed to have ignored it, I'll say it again. That trivia is poor and unnecessary, because 1.0 is the standard damage ratio (as in, the standard of the game physics, and the standard everyone uses to play competitively), and it is rather obvious that chain throws and combos will become less effective or even ineffective at higher damage ratios. It is just the natural effect of messing with the damage ratio and nothing notable. Allowing such trivia would open up a floodgate that inflates the trivia sections with poor, unnecessary, and often obvious trivia. Now, if you really want this trivia in so badly, actually refute this point, and do not go on about how you think "1.2 is the best to use and most balanced" and how "chain throws are cheap and pros shouldn't use them". Your own opinion on chain throws and what makes for the best competitive play is completely irrelevant to whether trivia about chain throws not being effective at higher damage ratios should belong. So please, don't bother posting if you're not going to address the main point I brought up as I do not feel like listening to one's rant about how the competitive community plays, which wasn't relevant or belong on this talk page in the first place. I would also like to respond to your last comment about the Wiki existing for facts. While that does have some truth, the Wiki is not a place to list a random assortment of facts. There's a standard for what to include and not to include and quite frankly, this proposed trivia of yours doesn't meet that standard for the reasons I brought up earlier. Omega Tyrant 13:18, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
hahahaha listen to yourself,you make it sound as if gaming competitions were wars or something,yes it is cheap because it can turn around an entire match with one just ONE single move hence why its cheap,and the fact that its easy to pull off makes it even worse,hell at least the ice climbers infinites are extremely hard to pull off and easy to mess up,but theres nothing hard about chaingrabing and in the case of fox vs pikachu its downright broken,you can go an entire match dominating the other player with a 100% difference but if you get grabed just ONCE the entire match turns around and youre dead,sure its not impossible to win but when all it takes is one move to lose its damn well hard and close enough to impossible!its a damn game,friendly competition not a freakin war,its meant to be balanced and fools like you who deny the fact that its broken have no sense of competitive spirit whatsoever,those who compete,true competitors,they like winning because theyre better not because they have some ridiculous ace or unfair advantage to nab them a victory,but no you treat gaming like its some petty war and dont mind winning shamelessly,a good player shouldnt be complaining about the loss of chaingrabing,they should be skilled enough to get by without it,as for relevance,anything having to do with the effects of DR is of greater significance than all the "changes from melee to brawl" topics you find on any of the character pages since how a character has changed from one game to another has no significance whatsoever especially if the one looking up information started with brawl,so basically all those sections are a waste of space that have no effect on brawl and dont even inform you about the game youre playing,and so what if 1.0 is the standard that competitors play with,tournaments dont play with items but all the item information is still here,anything having to do with the subspace emissary,bosses,subspace enemies ect those have nothing to do with competitive brawl but all that info is here,so before you start bitching about whats significant and what isnt take a look at how many insignificant things are found on a wiki,the effects of damage ratio semm far more significant to me than a great deal of other information on hereGig (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
- The changes from Melee to Brawl is far more important than miscellaneous information regarding obvious things that happen when you screw around with the damage ratio. You are entirely incorrect about a character's changes from Melee to Brawl having no impact. It shows how a character been buffed or nerfed, what is different about them, etc. I don't get how you say they don't inform you about the character in Brawl. Is it not informing to know that Jigglypuff's Rest has been weaken significantly and is no longer the terrifyingly powerful KO move it was in Melee? And can you explain how Jigglypuff having a severely nerfed Rest doesn't have an affect on its overall ability in Brawl in comparison to Melee? Your item argument isn't relevant at all. As 1.0 isn't just the ratio tournaments uses, it's the standard damage ratio of the game. All the information in this Wiki is based on the standard physics of Brawl, which in the case of damage ratio, is 1.0. I will also guarantee you that everyone here would agree that your miscellaneous information about obvious changes that occur with a change in damage ratio is far less important than information about the SSE, something that is one of Brawl's core features. So really, you never explained how your trivia about damage ratio was important, you just trashed other areas that are covered on the Wiki that have been deemed important enough to cover by the community on the Wiki. That does not make your proposed trivia look important enough to include at all. So please, look back at what I said, and bring up a point that actually refutes what I said. If you can not, then just drop this and accept that trivia about what happens with a different damage ratio doesn't belong as this whole thing is becoming a waste of time.
- I'll remind you once more, your ideas of what makes competitive play best does not belong on this page or is relevant to what was being discussed at all. Keep ranting about it at your own risk. Also, in future posts, I'll ask once more, make a better effort at grammar in your posts. Proper capitalisation and punctuation shouldn't be beyond your grammatical abilities. People will be less willing to care about what you say if they can barely understand it. Omega Tyrant 15:31, 12 October 2010 (EDT)
"miscellaneous information regarding obvious things"thats exactly what the changes from melee to brawl sections are,anyone whos played both will easily notice the differences,they dont need to be told,and anyone whos only played brawl doesnt need to know because it has no relevance to the game they are playing,knowing how a character has been buffed or nerfed from the previous game isnt going to help them understand the character better or help improve their game,hence,it is completely irrelevant,im not saying info on the different damage ratios is of great significance but it is no less significant than the previously mentioned so dont simply dismiss it as such since im sure the changes characters went from one game to another is much more common knowledge than how damage ratio actually affects the game,"Your item argument isn't relevant at all. As 1.0 isn't just the ratio tournaments uses, it's the standard damage ratio of the game"and the standard setting of the game is to have all items on so whats youre point,is this site meant to only explain tournament standards or anything to do with smash brothers,all i asked was for a small sentence on fox's trivia stating something along the lines of "pikachus o to death chain grab is no longer a 0 to death if the damage ratio is set to 1.1 or higher"but you dismissed it as common knowledge or as you said "miscellaneous information regarding obvious things"well im sure that knowledge is far less common than the changes a character went from one game to another since very few people actually ever bother to mess around with the damage ratio and most probably dont even know what its for or how it works,at least if they read that they might actually become interested in knowing how damage ratio works and try messing around with it just for fun,this site isnt tournament goers exclusive only you knowGig (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
- Just try to listen to what you say for once. Information regarding changes from Melee to Brawl is far from being "miscellaneous information regarding obvious things". There are plenty of subtle changes that takes the experience smasher to notice and I'm sure you don't know how every single attack was changed and exactly how much a character's physics were. I don't know why you're still trying to say the information there isn't relevant to Brawl. I gave you an example in my last post, that you seemingly completely ignored. Must I also remind you that this is changes from Melee to Brawl, which means these were changes that were implemented in the game and affect gameplay in Brawl. Thus, the information in these sections is fully relevant to the game (Brawl) being played. I'll also tell you that your statement of knowing how a character was buffed/nerfed can't help improve your ability with that character is completely false. Knowing how Ganondorf was nerfed as well as learning how to get by without L-Cancelling was certainly knowledge I was able to use to improve my abilities with him. While true such knowledge won't be helpful to everyone, it'll certainly be useful to a large enough group of people that are capable and willing to utilise that knowledge. But want to know how this whole argument that you brought up about the importance of the changes from Melee to Brawl fails? It doesn't relate to if your little trivia fact is important enough to include in the article. If it turns out these sections are considered unimportant by the community and not needed, your trivia about damage ratio is still not important enough to be included, which is what from I understand, is what you're trying to argue for. That is what is known as a red herring, a logical fallacy that you committed again during this talk page dispute.
- Now onto your item argument. It didn't work last time, and it still doesn't work. 1.0 damage ratio is the standard among game physics (items are not part of game physics) and is what every attack's knockback gets measured upon. This is not the case with items. Unlike the damage ratio, which doesn't change in any game mode unless it is changed in Vs. Mode options, certain items do not appear in certain 1P modes and events, or all even entirely omitted all together. I'll also say your statement about not being able to have information about items and tournament standards on the Wiki is false as we can cover items and still cover tournament standards. In the character articles, we have nothing about items in the information about their moveset, and when it comes to items, we have nothing about tournament play in their articles. So you can drop this whole thing about items, as attacking other content that is covered on the Wiki does not make your trivia look anymore important.
- Now, for the final part. Your information is just too trivial and is an obvious change to come from changing the game physics. You claim it isn't obvious as people may not know what the damage ratio does. But the only way they wouldn't know that is if they never fiddled with their options before (as damage ratio is one of the options on the first page and the game gives a sentence that describes the damage ratio well), which is about unfeasible to think someone never has. I would guarantee you that anyone who could find information about chain throwing useful would know by then what the damage ratio was. And when you the know the effect, it's obvious that with a higher damage ratio, chain throws and combos become more difficult, if not impossible with the increased knockback, while a lower damage ratio eases and strengthens combos and chain throws. Including trivia about a specific thing that occurs with a higher damage ratio that is just part of a whole general change is just plain unnecessary. I could create a shitload of trivia that comes from changing the damage ratio, such as that Bowser's Whirling Fortress OHKOs at a 2.0 damage ratio and that Dedede can infinite Snake, Bowser, Ganondorf, etc. with a 0.5 damage ratio. I could also include other trivia that comes from changing the game physics, such as if a tiny Luigi hits another tiny character with his d-taunt, they'll be OHKO'd. But I won't, as we have standards on the Wiki for information, and all of this is just simply too trivial.
- Now in conclusion, just drop this whole thing already. We're not including trivia about Pikachu's d-throw not being able to 0-death Fox on higher damage ratios, and you have not convinced anyone that it is important enough to include. Seeing how you're making such a large fuss over a rejection of an idea for a piece of trivia, I have some advice. Having an edit or idea for something to include on the Wiki being rejected is not something to get angry or emotional over. Every user here has had numerous edits of theirs reverted when they thought their edit was for the better. But all these users knew/learned that is just a natural happening in a Wiki and dealt with it civilly. If you're going to behave this way over your idea of a little piece of trivia being rejected, then a Wiki is not a place for you. But if you remain on the Wiki, respect other users, the Wiki's policies/guidelines, and respect the community's consensus for what is suitable content and what isn't. Also, I would like to ask once more, can you please put some sort of effort into better grammar in your posts? Surely your grammar can't be that poor and surely you know what how to use capital letters and periods. Each of your posts look like one giant sentence that is just absolutely unappealing to read and I'll say once more, if people can't understand you, they're not going to bother listening to what you have to say. Omega Tyrant 06:48, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
this whole thing is never going to go anywhere,because im basically saying "changes from melee to brawl doesnt help" and you give a lengthy reply that pretty much can be summarized by "yes it does" this whole thing has become nothing but a feud on opinions,youve yet to convince me how cetain topics like those make a difference in comparison to my small trivia but ill just drop it since youre too stubborn to ever admit being wrongGig (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
- I would like to remind you this isn't at all about the red herring you brought up in "changes from Melee to Brawl", it is about if your suggested trivia belonged (even though you brought up numerous, irrelevant red herrings along the way). As such, my reply was about why that trivia didn't belong, and I addressed your red herring in only the first paragraph, saying much more than simply "yes it does". Actually read my post fully before falsely summarising it. Omega Tyrant 07:56, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
I thought you wanted to put an end to this but i guess not.Where should i begin....i guess ill start with why the changes from Melee to Brawl section isnt important.Basically because you can just look at his moveset and attributes from his Melee page and his Brawl page and decide for yourself wether a character is buffed or nerfed.Theres no need to have a whole section explaining the differences when theres already two articles telling you everything you need to know about how the character works.Knowing wich attack is weaker and which attack is stronger isnt going to help since you can just look at the moveset section to know how each move works and how much killing potential it has ect.If someone really cared wether they were buffed or nerfed theyd simply go and take a look at the character's Melee page and decide for themselves.Overall knowing whats weaker and whats stronger is pointless,anything having to do with Melee has no significance whatsoever in brawl,you simply need to know the characters details pertaining to Brawl itself not to the previous game,hence the purpose of describing their moveset,weight,killing power ect.How exactly is knowing that Fox's upsmash was stronger in Melee than it was in Brawl going to help anyone win or improve,the whole changes from Melee to Brawl is nothing more than a large trivia section thats meant to either make you happy that a character you like is better or sad that a character you like is worse.Space on the article would be better spent giving tips on how to play a character,strategys,combos ect rather than telling me if the charactert is better or worse since thats really not going to help me in the slightest.Now for the small trivia thing,first of lets take a look at what IS currently on Fox's trivia
- The early trailers of Super Smash Bros. Brawl featured Fox constantly holding his blaster, instead of holstering it as usual.
- If Fox uses a fair during a "Mini Light Brawl", the momentum created by the fair actually causes him to float upward.
First of if youll notice the trivia at the start is mentioned at the begining of the article itself,so why it has to be repeated in trivia is beyond me,as for the second bit of trivia....how is that of any significance whatsoever....not to mention that if you read the article it already says that in relation to Fox's fair,as to how mini light brawl has anything to do with it i have no clue.Now for what i wanted to add,i wanted to add that if one plays on a 1.1 or higher damage ratio then Pikachus 0 to death chain grab on Fox is no longer a 0 to death,this may not be of significant importance to tournament play but it could have some significance to some random player,say he mains fox and has a friend who mains sheik or pikachu and always loses because he gets tilt locked or chain grabed to death,well now he can set the damage ratio to 1.1 and he wont have to worry about that anymore.As for the 1.2 making the game far more balanced,that was just a rant i got into in the heat of the moment,and it is very true.I dont know how but if i could id try to get the tournament scene to play on a 1.2 damage ratio,this does indeed make the game far more balanced,for starters it removes the majority of chain grabs outside of Dedede's,personally i have nothing against regular chain grabs like falco's or DDD's but when a chaingrab is capable of easily inflicting over 80% damage from a single grab no one can honestly deny this is broken and an undesired game mechanic.Setting the damage ratio to 1.2 removes the threat of those chaingrabs and makes lower tier characters far more viable in a tournament scene,the 1.2 damage ratio has a positive and negative effect on pretty much every character,examples include falco,although he loses his chain grab he can still follow up on the down throw and as a bonus he cant be chain grabed by pikachu anymore or as easyly juggled as well as improved killing power and edgeguarding like the majority,or meta knight,who becomes easier to kill but becomes much more proficient at edgeguarding,for other characters,lower tier characters it has a far more benneficial effect,such as fox,he probably gains the most from the 1.2 DR,the only downside is he dies easier which can be bad considering he dies relatively easy as it is,however in exchange for that he can no longer be chain grabed by pikachu(although pikachu can still follow up on the D-throw)and sheiks tilt lock is no longer as devastating and he can KO easier,he becomes as good if not superior to falco.Another character who greatly benefits is ganondorf who is no longer chain grabable by wario,pikachu,or falco and again sheik's tilt lock is no longer as devastating and he gains a significant boost in killing power easily KOing at around 70 or 80% however the greater knock back makes edgeguarding twice as dangerous on a character like him,some characters who share similar benefits to Fox and Ganon are Wolf and Falcon who shared many of the same weaknesses,all in all the 1.2 damage ratio makes the game far better and matches not as irritatingly long....whoops i went on another rant...Gig (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2010 (EDT)
- Putting "changing the damage ratio changes combos/chain throws" in various pages is not relevent because the Damage Ratio page covers every possible such edit on a single page. Most users with a brain can deduce the implications of the feature from that page alone; those that don't probably aren't old or mature enough to be concerned with it as a factor in serious play.
- The "changes between games" sections are relevent because people don't want to look at two pages to find out how a character has changed between games, and there is no better way to do it.
- This conversation is occuring/has already occured in this SmashBoards topic.
- Any user who continues this conversation on this page will be blocked. This talk page is about Fox (SSBB), not one user's opinion of the damage ratio. If you are compelled to continue without going to the SmashBoards topic then do so on Talk:Damage Ratio or User talk:Gig.
- It's encouraged to have your own opinion. It's okay to try and convince others to agree with you. It's not okay to expect that they will.
Fox and Falco´s Down Smash
When I was researching Fox´s frame data I realize something: It is said that Falco´s down smash is faster then Fox´s down smash, but Falco´s d-smash hits on frame 7 while Fox hits on frame 6. So...how can it be more faster? I toke the frame data from the Smash World Forum guides. Zero (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2010 (EST)
- Just a guess, perhaps in terms of post-hit lag? Smiddle (talk) 05:54, 25 December 2010 (EST)
- No, they say that its faster both in start-up and ending lag. Zero (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2010 (EST)