User talk:Ryxis

Hi there!
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  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. S c r 7 Scr7 sig.png(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  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 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)
 * Smashwiki is not complete. It contains errors. Citing those potential errors as if they're correct only causes more errors. Just because there's inconsistency in the item page titles doesn't mean we need inconsistency in the disambiguation page titles.
 * there simply isn't any reason for the article title to give any information on the make-up of the article
 * There is plenty, plenty reason to have information redundantly in the title. The title is the sole thing that tells you what the make-up of the article is before you go there. You only see the title of a page when it's linked. You only see the title of a page when it shows up as a recommended search. You need to know what the page is going to be about by the title. Here, which one is the article that's going to have information about Yoshi in Melee? Yoshi or Yoshi? It's impossible to tell when I obscure an important part of the title. The same goes for a disambiguation page. A user searches for invisibility and they see Invisibility (disambiguation) in the search, and they know what they'll get if they go there. They'll get disambiguation on invisibility. Redundant titles help people navigate. Ryxis (talk) 11:08, 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. Flu ff y D P  10:51, 4 March 2014 (EST)
 * Also Wikipedia:Link is clearly a disambiguation page but does not have (disambiguation) in the title. Flu ff y D P  10:55, 4 March 2014 (EST)
 * There's no need to be sloppy for the sake of not putting effort into being consistent. That's what we do here. We polish things and have a high standard of quality. Quality is consistency. Also we're not Wikipedia. Wikipedia's rules may be useful when exploring areas too widely spread and broad for a small wiki like this to have laid down guidelines already, but they are not our rules. Ryxis (talk) 11:08, 4 March 2014 (EST)
 * Wikipedia's rules aren't ours; you're correct, but that wasn't my point. Those examples show that are cases when using disambiguation makes sense, and cases where it isn't needed. In this case, it's not needed because there's no clear choice for the Invisibility page, so it should just be a disambiguation page, but it doesn't need to state as such in the title. It's not necessary. No, "consistency" for the sake of being uniform for no good reason is not quality. Quality is doing what is sensible on a case-by-case basis (in some cases that means being uniform, but not here). Flu ff y D P  13:15, 4 March 2014 (EST)
 * And why shouldn't we let people know what kind of page a disambiguation page is? Should we get rid of all extraneous details from page titles? Kill the entire smasher namespace because it's not necessary to let people know that those are smasher pages? No, the details in the titles help people navigate. Like I said in my response above your first post. Ryxis (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2014 (EST)
 * The Smasher namespace is for organization; adding disambiguation to a title isn't even remotely analogous. The disambiguation template clearly labels it as a disambiguation page. Yes titles help people navigate, but in this case there isn't another page labeled "invisibility", so help isn't needed like it would be if there was another page labeled as such. I'm sure that if the disambiguation wasn't part of the title, people won't be confused. Flu ff y D P  14:14, 4 March 2014 (EST)

Wi-Fi
Hey since you really like PM and all my friends hate it for stupid reasons (one hates for not being an official game the others think its unbalanced but that because they arent technical at ALL) would you like to fight sometime? Tonight? Tomorrow? My brawl code is on my page by the way. One last thing: My PM SD Card is not modded in anyway. So their is no different stages or songs. I also only Play on the Wii. --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2014 (EDT)
 * I can't today, tomorrow, or Saturday because I'll be busy, but maybe some time. Ryxis (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2014 (EDT)
 * Sunday? --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2014 (EDT)
 * Wanna fight tonight or tomorrow? If yes then ill contact you when I get home. --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2014 (EDT)
 * Tell me if im annoying you by asking you this a lot: Want to fight sometime this week? And no April Fools has nothing to do with this. --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
 * Oh, sorry. I mean, I don't have the wifi-codeset. I could get it, but I'm not really a fan of online play. I prefer to play in person and also I've heard bad things about the lag. Ryxis (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2014 (EDT)
 * We actually live pretty nearby. I just cant travel much. You could give it a shot. --TheLegendaryKRB (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2014 (EDT)

FP4
Lol. Saw you fight M2K at Fight Pitt IV. -- Myth  17:22, 19 April 2014 (EDT)