You said you don't agree with it, which means you find fault with it, and I'm responding as to why it's justified. If you find it justified, why bring it up as an example of a "unnecessary nerf"?
If a "nerf" isn't consequential, why complain about it to begin when it's not going to affect anything? And I bring up the shields because that's why the getup attacks deal 2 less bonus shield damage.
You can easily test it yourself, and I already reported it there; in fact it's in the OP now.
Except as explained, they weren't actually nerfed like you're making them out to be, and they were simple "quality of life" changes made to account for a significant engine change. Not every change to a percieved lower tier character needs to be a straight buff.
Except I did? The shield stun formula was reworked to inflict significantly more shield damage on shields, so some moves with bonus shield damage had it slightly reduced to account for the even greater shield damage they'll be inflicting with the longer shield stuns. That's explaining why, and ignoring significant engine changes when considering changes to characters shows a severe lack of understanding on how balancing works.
And again, if a "nerf" is only a nerf under the absolute technical term, who cares? How does it matter if it's not going to actually affect the actual game in the slightest?
Your original post I responded to:
"I just read through the community patch notes...
Some times I wonder exactly how terrible so many players are to the point that Nintendo nerfs things that dont need nerfing. I understand why Nintendo, as a business, needs to do things like that.....but I just feel that more players should take responsibility for their own suckiness instead of blaming a game or a character."
Sounds like complaining about a nonissue to me, lamenting about "needless nerfs" and blaming players being "terrible" for them happening, when the only actual nerfs in the patch was to Luigi's infamous down throw and a near-negligible knockback growth nerf on the final hit of his Cyclone.
I'll respond in mostly in order.
[stuff about faults]
No, not agreeing with a change does not mean I find fault in it. I personally felt that dodging was fine as is, but I understood that many players felt it was too lenient. It was a matter of taste, not a matter of the logic being wrong.
[complaining about nerfs]
Again, look at my original post. I was wondering, not complaining. A casual thought about why changes were made when they dont need to be isnt complaining. At not least not where I'm from.
[significant engine change and get up attacks nerfs]
Yes, it was a significant engine change that didn't need to happen. Therefore the adjustments to get up attacks, which are a result of the universal shield nerf, is also unnecessary to me.
[buffs]
Nowhere did I say or imply that a character needed buffs.
[testing it myself]
Unfortunately, no, I can't test this myself. Some recent financial issues due to a scummy convention seller and being laid off (all around the same time and in a terrible order) meant selling many of my games and collectors items to make ends meet. And my closest fgc scene, Yomi, doesnt do smash; not that I have much time to go there. But even if I could test it, the point of patch notes is to be a quick reference so people dont have to test every single change them selves. Thank you for having them update that thread, though.
[more shieldstun stuff]
And again, you still haven't said
why universal shield stun changes were made in the first place, just how they work, which I understand; I know smash, I saw the equation, and I understand math, so I know what it does. Explaining how things work
after-the-fact tells people nothing about
why the balance changes were necessary in the first place. It's like changing a U.I. of a site people think is fine; you can explain to users how the new U.I. works (though you probably dont need to like in this case), but it doesn't necessarily explain
why it was changed. And when there wasn't a problem with the old one they are going to wonder why it was changed. Does them wondering mean they have no idea how UI works? Does it mean all the U.I. changes were necessary?
So I'll rephrase my question to you. Maybe I was just unclear in my tiredness. Why do you think or feel the base changes (that resulted in all the qol and minor changes) were necessary and what do they accomplish? Personally, I think I see what they accomplish and why they were made, but I simply don't think it was necessary.
[technical terms / who cares]
There's a reason my initial post it was simple, off-hand remark and not a page long tirade. The only reason I'm still talking about it is because you asked what I thought and then proceeded to make assumptions, rude ones at that, about me and my thoughts, so I keep replying. If you hadnt responded you'd never have heard me speak of it again.
[stuff about complaining, lamenting, and terrible players]
That is 83% incorrect. I was wondering, not complaining
because it just didnt matter much; it was literally a passing thought. I wasn't lamenting because it didnt make me feel anything and it wont significantly affect how well I play. I
was half serious about terrible players being the cause of most of the changes, though, so I'll give you a solid 17% correctness on that.
[Luigi]
I
did say that most of the changes weren't significant (thrice at this point I believe).
And there's a reason I didn't list Luigi in
any of my posts.