Talk:Boomerang: Difference between revisions
MuteSpittah (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
MuteSpittah (talk | contribs) m (→Split) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
After thinking it over, I '''oppose''' on grounds that I think this split will be a real mess. Let me lay it out: We have a move that has been used by a character (Link) for 2 games, plus a clone (YL) in one of those 2 games. Then, come Brawl, Link's 'rang gets replaced with the gale, and we get a ''new'' clone with the original move, which also caries over into 4. So essentially, we are dealing with 4 different moves here: Link's Boomerang (SSB, SSBM), Young Link's Boomerang (SSBM), Toon Link's Boomerang (SSBB, SSB4), and Link's Gale Boomerang (SSBB, SSB4). Where do we make the split and what goes where? I think we are honestly better off leaving it as is. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:12pt">[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083; text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #0b7">'''Serpent'''</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|16px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0; text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #fd0">'''King'''</span></span>]] 23:46, 28 April 2016 (EDT) | After thinking it over, I '''oppose''' on grounds that I think this split will be a real mess. Let me lay it out: We have a move that has been used by a character (Link) for 2 games, plus a clone (YL) in one of those 2 games. Then, come Brawl, Link's 'rang gets replaced with the gale, and we get a ''new'' clone with the original move, which also caries over into 4. So essentially, we are dealing with 4 different moves here: Link's Boomerang (SSB, SSBM), Young Link's Boomerang (SSBM), Toon Link's Boomerang (SSBB, SSB4), and Link's Gale Boomerang (SSBB, SSB4). Where do we make the split and what goes where? I think we are honestly better off leaving it as is. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:12pt">[[User:Serpent King|<span style="color:#083; text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #0b7">'''Serpent'''</span>]] [[File:SKSig.png|16px|link=]] [[User talk:Serpent King|<span style="color:#ed0; text-shadow:0px 0px 3px #fd0">'''King'''</span></span>]] 23:46, 28 April 2016 (EDT) | ||
:'''Oppose''' per Serpent. This would be an even messier job than the other splits we've done recently. [[User:Disaster Flare|<span style="color:Green; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px green">'''Disaster'''</span> <span style="color:Blue;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px blue">'''Flare'''</span>]] [[File:Disaster Flare signature image.png|20px]] ''[[User talk:Disaster Flare|<span style="color:SkyBlue;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px skyblue">(talk)</span>]]'' 23:50, 28 April 2016 (EDT) | :'''Oppose''' per Serpent. This would be an even messier job than the other splits we've done recently. [[User:Disaster Flare|<span style="color:Green; text-shadow: 0px 0px 3px green">'''Disaster'''</span> <span style="color:Blue;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px blue">'''Flare'''</span>]] [[File:Disaster Flare signature image.png|20px]] ''[[User talk:Disaster Flare|<span style="color:SkyBlue;text-shadow:0px 0px 3px skyblue">(talk)</span>]]'' 23:50, 28 April 2016 (EDT) | ||
::The split would be obvious: Gale Boomerang from the rest of the Boomerangs. Idk I think they can both stand on their own. [[User:MuteSpittah|MuteSpittah]] ([[User talk:MuteSpittah|talk]]) 06:35, 29 April 2016 (EDT) | ::The split would be obvious: Gale Boomerang from the rest of the Boomerangs. Idk I think they can both stand on their own, there's enough written about both. [[User:MuteSpittah|MuteSpittah]] ([[User talk:MuteSpittah|talk]]) 06:35, 29 April 2016 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 06:50, April 29, 2016
About the glitch, does anyone know if the hitbox is constant or is it just stuck there as a model and does nothing? ChocolatePieis tasty! 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Split
Could go either way, honestly. Unlike Hammer and Hammer Flip, this move is shared across three different characters as "Boomerang," and Gale Boomerang has enough written about it that it can stand on its own. I'm leaning towards support. MuteSpittah (talk) 03:09, 26 April 2016 (EDT)
I don't necessarily oppose, but I am a little iffy on this one. Serpent 
King 04:09, 28 April 2016 (EDT)
Support. Like the Blaster and Reflector situations, this is an attack that is essentially similar but has enough special properties and a different name. I think that warrants a move. John 
PK SMAAAASH!! 14:21, 28 April 2016 (EDT)
After thinking it over, I oppose on grounds that I think this split will be a real mess. Let me lay it out: We have a move that has been used by a character (Link) for 2 games, plus a clone (YL) in one of those 2 games. Then, come Brawl, Link's 'rang gets replaced with the gale, and we get a new clone with the original move, which also caries over into 4. So essentially, we are dealing with 4 different moves here: Link's Boomerang (SSB, SSBM), Young Link's Boomerang (SSBM), Toon Link's Boomerang (SSBB, SSB4), and Link's Gale Boomerang (SSBB, SSB4). Where do we make the split and what goes where? I think we are honestly better off leaving it as is. Serpent King 23:46, 28 April 2016 (EDT)
- Oppose per Serpent. This would be an even messier job than the other splits we've done recently. Disaster Flare
(talk) 23:50, 28 April 2016 (EDT)
- The split would be obvious: Gale Boomerang from the rest of the Boomerangs. Idk I think they can both stand on their own, there's enough written about both. MuteSpittah (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2016 (EDT)
