Talk:Crush

Wait a minute
I clearly saw Villager get crushed by Midgar forming back together in the presentation. Is that not a crushing effect, or...? Aidan, the Jolly Space Warrior  22:54, 15 December 2015 (EST)
 * I'd count it. Disaster Flare  Disaster Flare signature image.png  (talk)  22:54, 15 December 2015 (EST)
 * No, but see, here's the thing: in Brawl, Pirate Ship had a crushing effect, but in Wii U, it doesn't. So either crushing doesn't exist altogether and the stage uses the hitbox from something like the Orne, or crushing exists solely on Midgar. AidanzapunkChristmasSig.png Aidan, the Jolly Space Warrior AidanzapunkChristmasSig2.png 22:57, 15 December 2015 (EST)
 * Hmm...I'd check myself, but A: I don't have Cloud and won't be able to get him until after Christmas, and B: I don't know how to hack the game so. Disaster Flare  Disaster Flare signature image.png  (talk)  22:58, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Definitely counts; a rewrite to that effect should be implemented. Miles ( talk)  23:07, 15 December 2015 (EST)
 * I'll add a cleanup tag for it, as I don't have the time to do it right now. Disaster Flare  Disaster Flare signature image.png  (talk)  23:08, 15 December 2015 (EST)

Move proposal
Strong oppose. This is again the name of a feature and renaming the article is not only incredibly moot, but probably also pointless as well. At this rate, I'll be able to copy and paste these talk page posts. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 18:51, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Strong oppose per BV. Don't even see why this would be an issue. Aidan, the Rurouni  18:59, 27 February 2018 (EST)


 * Never dismiss anything as being "pointless" or "not an issue" without other valid reasons, seemingly minor things should not be ignored if they would make the wiki better. The very first line of the article refers to the topic as "crushing" anyways, which seems to suggest that "Crushing" would be a better title for the article. In addition, every article referring to an action is written in the "-ing" form: Camping instead of Camp, Turtling instead of Turtle, Edgeguarding instead of Edgeguard. Awesome   Cardinal   2000  20:19, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Oppose. Why even... St. Reggie,   Leprachaun  23:44, 27 February 2018 (EST)

Oppose-leaning neutral. It’s really kind of useless to even make a big deal out of changing the name of an article to a redirect right to it. Ganonmew, The Evil Clone  21:06, 8 March 2018 (EST)
 * "There's already a redirect" is not a valid reason. If an article would have a better title, it should be moved, regardless if the title already existed as a redirect. Awesome   Cardinal   2000  21:29, 8 March 2018 (EST)

The MoS states that titles should be nouns opposed to verbs. According to this dictionary definition, the word "crush" as a noun has two definitions: an infatuation for someone else, or a mob of people. The word "Crush" here applies to neither of these definitions as a noun. Awesome  Cardinal   2000  21:59, 8 March 2018 (EST)


 * Will you please stop, Ac2k? Nobody cares, and nobody wants to move it. At this point the move tags are a nuisance. St. Reggie,   the Iron Leprachaun Warrior  04:21, 11 March 2018 (EDT)
 * Calm yourself, Iron. This is not adding to the discussion and will only serve to create conflict. Black Vulpine  of the Furry Nation.  Furries make the internets go! :3  04:37, 11 March 2018 (EDT)
 * Sorry. St. Reggie,   the Iron Leprachaun Warrior  04:51, 11 March 2018 (EDT)

Gonna now push to close this proposal as failed if nobody has anything else to say. Black Vulpine of the Furry Nation. Furries make the internets go! :3 20:42, 14 March 2018 (EDT)
 * Care to respond to the dictionary example that I linked instead of doing the same thing you've been doing countless times already?  Awesome  Cardinal   2000  13:56, 15 March 2018 (EDT)
 * Care to stop gravedigging discussions that have been closed or edit warring? Black Vulpine  of the Furry Nation.  Furries make the internets go! :3  19:02, 15 March 2018 (EDT)
 * That's a blatant ad hominem, stop calling this "gravedigging" when this discussion was never a closed discussion in the first place. You were the one who posted who made the original push to close it as failed, so if you want to go by that logic, you were the one who was "gravedigging" it in the first place. And what I did on the other page has absolutely nothing to do with this current discussion.
 * If you want to close the discussion, why not respond to what I said about how article titles should be nouns according to the MoS, or how the word "Crush" being used here does not fit any of the dictionary definitions for the word "crush" as a noun, or how the entire article uses the word "Crushing" instead of "Crush"? If you're right, I'll back down/agree with you, and you'll actually have a claim to being right, rather than "I'm going to push for my way while simultaneously refusing to discuss it at the same time."  Awesome  Cardinal   2000  13:15, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

For the record, I closed discussion based on the fact that this discussion was 4-1 favor to oppose, not because BV told me to. Speaking in terms of the discussion, I'd like to put forward the idea that "actions performed by X" should be treated different from "actions made to x". Crush is obviously the latter, camping, turtling, and edgeguarding are obviously the former... buuut here even we have inconsistencies grab, air dodge, jump, walk and so on. Because of this, instead of doing this by article, we should be discussing what standard should be set here, or why these inconsistencies should exist. I believe there was a discussion at some point where Toomai made a case about how these need to be done in a case by case basis, but I don't remember where that discussion is or what the full argument was.  Serpent   King  14:21, 16 March 2018 (EDT)
 * I understand the reasons for closing the discussion, I just disapprove of BV's active calls to close the discussion while refusing to discuss the issue at all. For the examples you linked, the "walk" article even uses the word "walking" in the first sentence, which in my opinion reflects pretty well on what the article should be called.  Awesome  Cardinal   2000  15:52, 16 March 2018 (EDT)
 * I know there was a discussion somewhere about these kinds of moves and I also know that a bunch of "-ings" were sliced off the titles at one point.  Serpent SKSig.png  King  16:25, 16 March 2018 (EDT)

Pirate Ship crush
Has anyone actually ever seen a crush happen on Pirate Ship in Brawl? I never have, and it would actually surprise me if a crush was present in VS mode when it was clearly introduced as a platforming mechanic for SSE. Per the tag on this article, we're in need of a GIF/video of it, suggesting no one has ever recorded it happening. I'm wondering if it's a real thing. SuperFalconBros (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2018 (EDT)

Pirate Ship crush update
Any luck so far on replicating the Pirate Ship crush? Just tried it myself for like half an hour and couldn't replicate it. Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 14:32, July 30, 2019 (EDT)

Apologies on the cut short edit summary, I accidentally hit "Go" on my phone before I was done typing it. This is what I meant to say:

"After getting no success in over 50 tries (done with Dolphin savestates), and with no video evidence, I've concluded that this crush does not exist, so I'll be removing all mentions of it."

Awesomelink234, the Super Cool Gamer Leave a message if needed 15:04, July 30, 2019 (EDT)

Mechanic in Brawl
I've been looking into the code of crushes in brawl, and the mechanic is not a hitbox at all as listed in the page currently. It is just a check for a specific property of the floor/cieling/wall and that two collisions are moving towards each other. This code is hard coded to only happen if in subspace, so the discussion of it existing on Pirate ship can be finalised since its literally not possible (theres a strong spike property on the ship that is probably what they were thinking of). I dont want to update the page with this info since i can't personally confirm that the hitbox isnt how the crush works on Midgar, but it is 100% not a hitbox in brawl and cant be invinced through. 81.110.221.174 15:52, February 11, 2021 (EST)
 * You are correct that crushing in SSE doesn't use hitboxes...that was pretty much confirmed to me when I messed around with size modification. That said though, all examples in Smash 4 and Ultimate are caused by hitboxes.  Alex the  Weeb  15:56, February 11, 2021 (EST)

Edit summary
Undid edit by Black Vulpine: No, I'm not. The issue here is coming from a misunderstanding of how crushing works, so I'll clarify. What the Wiki refers to as crushing in Ultimate is caused by a special hitbox generated by the stage during the time period that crushing is supposed to be possible. It is not a terrain effect, as the editor claimed, nor is it inherent to surfaces closing in on each other. On Midgar, this hitbox is generated shortly before the two pieces of the stage recombine, and a fighter's ECB does not need to be in contact with the walls for it to KO them, their hurtboxes simply need to overlap with this hitbox (hence why a crouching giant DK can be crushed by this, because of the giant hurtbox in front of his chest). On Distant Planet, an inert hitbox is present, which when activated will trigger the crushing hitbox to appear. Again, this must be a hitbox, not a terrain effect, because actually landing on the tongue is not a requirement to be crushed, and if you have invincibility which wears off just after Bulborb's mouth closes, you'll still be standing on the tongue, in his now closed mouth, but won't be KO'd. Both instances of "crushing" are triggered in the same way, so either both are valid examples, or neither is.  Alex the  Weeb  17:09, February 11, 2021 (EST)
 * Apologies, this was originally my misunderstanding so I feel responsible. I'll specifically add the Giant DK example to the Midgar example to clarify for future readers. Zowayix (talk) 02:04, January 27, 2022 (EST)