- 14,956
- 1,831
If it is just a crossover then I personallly say no. If not then I dont really have a reason to deny it.
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Tier 2 Smash Bros. Pages
- Thread starter Marco_Shark
- Start date
- Status
- 32,359
- 20,298
>Be me
>See Tier 2 Smash thread
>Disagree
>Azzy and others disagree too
>Gets rejected
>People make a second thread just to try again less than a day after
11/10
>See Tier 2 Smash thread
>Disagree
>Azzy and others disagree too
>Gets rejected
>People make a second thread just to try again less than a day after
11/10
- 4,652
- 1,328
Hey I'm all for keeping 7-B smash if someone can provide reasons for doing so. I've since changed my mind about Low 2-C Smash.
Like PaChi said, I think we should finish this as quickly as possible before it becomes too repetitive. Solve the following issues:
Like PaChi said, I think we should finish this as quickly as possible before it becomes too repetitive. Solve the following issues:
- Is Low 2-C valid?
- If so, should we make profiles for everyone else?
- 15,418
- 5,748
Except there are no reasons to split the two pages. Mr. Game & Watch as a concept was introduced by Smash.
- 31,638
- 34,661
I also agree with Matt; I'm one of the people who'd support Low 2-C for every single Nintendo character if it were really all about favoritism. But We'd have way too many alternate profiles for too many characters. A profile for Low 2-C Kirby also seems very unnecessary. Staff already have their hands for with Naruto/Bleach revisions, Tier 4 revisions ect; all more important than this.
Just leave the god tiers at Low 2-C and the fodder characters much lower.
Just leave the god tiers at Low 2-C and the fodder characters much lower.
- 1,508
- 281
because there is a Kirby in game feat to scale everyone toYobobojojo said:
- 14,391
- 5,220
Why do we even still have the Kirby Smash profile anyway? The Smash key in all of the other characters got removed, so, why not just delete that profile?
- 15,418
- 5,748
@Dark False. Mr. Game & Watch never had any appearance pre-Smash. All of his "appearances" were just generic Game & Watch characters. Melee was the first to even bring up the idea of a composite of all the generic Game & Watch characters.
- 14,391
- 5,220
Oh, sorry, I didn't see them.Dark649 said:
- 9,738
- 1,523
- 1,508
- 281
I give up
- 4,652
- 1,328
The notion that I'm arguing for Low 2-C Smash solely for the sake of Low 2-C Smash characters and Kirby is a blatant strawman. Like I said before, this isn't about coming to a conclusion that is comfortable or satisfying, but one that is logically sound.
These feats are consistent and they use the same reasoning as our current ones. Why not include them?
These feats are consistent and they use the same reasoning as our current ones. Why not include them?
- 539
- 10
- Thread starter
- #61
So, judt because "the admins" (aka. We do not have the exact votes or discussion for us "normal users" to see) want them deleted without ab explanation, we are supposed to just take it as it is and not complain?
I tought this was a discussion, not a "what i say its rule" kind of thing..
I tought this was a discussion, not a "what i say its rule" kind of thing..
- 10,541
- 12,361
@Dark
Completely false. What Azzy rejected, along with Ryu and even Cal, was making profiles for characters like Smash!Mario, Link and the others.
Completely false. What Azzy rejected, along with Ryu and even Cal, was making profiles for characters like Smash!Mario, Link and the others.
- 26,335
- 3,128
Dark649 said:
bad arguments are bad, it doesn't matter if they come from the president
- 539
- 10
- Thread starter
- #65
I agree with overlord
- 10,541
- 12,361
"Hence why it's fine to have profiles for original characters with actual feats from Smash, but not to randomly create a bunch of pages for nearly identical versions of already existing characters for the sole purpose of giving them a power boost.
This isn't even about new forms or powers or something. It's just about having what essentially amounts to copy profiles but the Tier is changed to Low 2-C."
~ Azathot the Abyssal Idiot
This isn't even about new forms or powers or something. It's just about having what essentially amounts to copy profiles but the Tier is changed to Low 2-C."
~ Azathot the Abyssal Idiot
- 14,391
- 5,220
What was the reasoning for the Low 2-C feats being rejected?
- 20,729
- 3,679
That is no copy page.Dark649 said:
Anna's main page only covers anna's basic abilities (the ones from her main classes)
That profile covers all the alternative abilities Anna can have during a playthrough because you can have her marry anyone, including the DLC skills (i.e. Apotheosis Anna, gatekeeper Anna). The same way Future warrior can earn more abilities through DLCs, Anna is precisely the only character who is relevant DLC-wise (Apotheosis) and should have all her abilities listed.
In fact, the only reason I considered Composite Anna a thing was the fact that she states herself that all Annas are sisters and look alike, making possible that all alternative Anna's are canon to each other.
- 539
- 10
- Thread starter
- #70
"I will call another person to agree with me"
Great argument, mate.
It doesnt matter how many agree with you if your argument is still faulty.
Great argument, mate.
It doesnt matter how many agree with you if your argument is still faulty.
- 16,963
- 4,864
Im honestly going to agree with Arbitary Numbers on this one.
Won't say much right now, but deciding to reject and get rid of them just because "staff says so" is blatent appeal to authroity and with all due respect, completely disregarding what normal users have to say about this.
Don't get me wrong. I value staff decisions all the time definitely, and respect them, but we can't just go along with something if there's not even a good solid argument or reason to agree with it in the first place.
If there's good reason, or arguments, to say no to Low 2-C then of course i'll agree. But until then, I really see no issue's with having these pages and "no" can't be an answer to deny the verse ratings that seem perfectly logical and consistent.
Won't say much right now, but deciding to reject and get rid of them just because "staff says so" is blatent appeal to authroity and with all due respect, completely disregarding what normal users have to say about this.
Don't get me wrong. I value staff decisions all the time definitely, and respect them, but we can't just go along with something if there's not even a good solid argument or reason to agree with it in the first place.
If there's good reason, or arguments, to say no to Low 2-C then of course i'll agree. But until then, I really see no issue's with having these pages and "no" can't be an answer to deny the verse ratings that seem perfectly logical and consistent.
- 4,652
- 1,328
I also agree with Matt; I'm one of the people who'd support Low 2-C for every single Nintendo character if it were really all about favoritism.DarkDragonMedeus said:
This isn't about favoritism in the slightest. There's no reason to deny these feats, and you all keep bringing up the same stuff over and over again after I've already covered it above several times.
But We'd have way too many alternate profiles for too many characters. A profile for Low 2-C Kirby also seems very unnecessary.
The notion that I'm only doing this for Low 2-C Kirby is a huge strawman. Like I said above, this isn't about reaching a comfortable conclusion or a satisfying one; it's about reaching a valid one.
Also, again, I'm okay with not creating a billion profiles if it's that big of a deal. I'm just saying this Low 2-C upgrade is more valid than our current rankings.
Staff already have their hands for with Naruto/Bleach revisions, Tier 4 revisions ect; all more important than this.
This isn't a staff discussion thread. I understand that the staff would be bothered by this, and if that's the case then I encourage that they focus on their priorities.
- 31,638
- 34,661
You do realize Low 2-C Smash means Low 2-C Primids and ROB's; and that's the equivalent of 4-A Goombas and 2-C Castlevania skeletons.
- 10,541
- 12,361
@Dark
Because people were still debating if it should be implemented at all; plus, that Kirby profile is one of the copies he rejected. Heck, the profile only exists to scale to the other characters. Since now it has been brought a legitimate feat of this characters, the page is no longer needed. At least, that's what I understood (and agree) among all the chaos that was the other thread.
Because people were still debating if it should be implemented at all; plus, that Kirby profile is one of the copies he rejected. Heck, the profile only exists to scale to the other characters. Since now it has been brought a legitimate feat of this characters, the page is no longer needed. At least, that's what I understood (and agree) among all the chaos that was the other thread.
- 539
- 10
- Thread starter
- #75
- 15,418
- 5,748
@DarkDragon What? We won't upgrade the Primid to Low 2-C for the same reasons why the Goombas aren't 4-A like you said yourself.
- 14,391
- 5,220
Why was Low 2-C SSB rejected? I remember people agreeing that we shouldn't have random and unnecessary SSB pages (which makes sense), but why were the Low 2-C stats removed from the pages that weren't deleted? I'm not saying that they should go back to Low 2-C, I'm just confused as to why they were downgraded.
- 4,652
- 1,328
So far the only arguments against Low 2-C in this thread have been strawman arguments, appeals to authority, or just straight up ignoring the real meat of what I have to say here.
- 10,541
- 12,361
@Marco
While I understand the frustration brought by this topic and feeling of not being listened, you should stop that attitude right now.
1. Is highly disrespectful
2. It doesn't help your case at all. In fact, is hurting it.
3. The same way you feel frustrated, the staff might feel that way about this, so you are being unreasonable while especting others to be reasonable with you.
While I understand the frustration brought by this topic and feeling of not being listened, you should stop that attitude right now.
1. Is highly disrespectful
2. It doesn't help your case at all. In fact, is hurting it.
3. The same way you feel frustrated, the staff might feel that way about this, so you are being unreasonable while especting others to be reasonable with you.
- 4,652
- 1,328
Once again:
I am more than willing to not create a billion profiles if it truly is that big of a deal. That's not the point. The point here is that I think the Low 2-C upgrades are more valid and consistent than our current ones.
I am more than willing to not create a billion profiles if it truly is that big of a deal. That's not the point. The point here is that I think the Low 2-C upgrades are more valid and consistent than our current ones.
- Status
