In Brawl, it's possible. I've done it.

  • Double Jump
  • fall backwards at the diagonal
  • Air Dodge near the bottom

takes forever, and it honestly isn't practical. But it is still in. Max2 (Talk)

That's a Waveland, not a Wavedash. --Sky (t · c · w) 01:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

really? I thought Wavelanding just made you land on a jump-through platform faster. Max2 (Talk) sorry then.

"Contrary to some belief, wavedashing is not a glitch, but instead is completely explainable by the physics system in the game, despite being an unintended physics byproduct."

Unfortunatly I have to disagree with this statment because a completely explainable by the physics system in the game, despite being an unintended physics byproduct, is the very definition of a glitch because the result was unintended thus yes, this is a glitch.

By your defininition Windows never has glitches all of the behaviour is perfectly explainable behaviour based on how the code was written, the result wasn't inteneded but it was the natural result.

70.57.50.190 10:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wavedashing is NOT a glitch!

A glitch is an error in programing. It has no real explanation on why it happens. Samus' Super Wavedash and Link's Super jump are glitches.

Wavedashing however has an explanation on why it happens. The sudden momentum from an airdodge is transfered to the ground, causing a slide. That is part of the physics engine. If a character is spiked to the ground diagonally, their body will slide a bit. Even happens in Brawl.

The developers programmed the slide, but they didn't think it would give any advantage, so they left it in Melee. This would make Wavedashing a physics exploit at best.

STOP CALLING WAVEDASHING A GLITCH! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaXzero (talkcontribs) 20:43, June 19, 2008

Unintended=glitch. - Gargomon251 (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's right. Wavedashing is a necessary byproduct of the game physics engine and is not a glitch. It can be calculated based on momentum and traction and falls directly into the normal programing. The definition of a glitch is something that cannot be explained by the programing of the game. Therefore, wavedashing is not a glitch. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 05:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

By the very definition of a deterministic machine, every single aspect of a game can be somehow explained by its programming, even something like the super wavedash, so this definition of "glitch" is wishful thinking. Any behavior which deviates from the indented is a glitch. --Nknk (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Couple problems with that last statement. (A) How do you determine intent? (B) That's not the right definition of a glitch; a glitch is some malfunction of game programming. Wavedashing is not a malfunction, but rather a byproduct of the use of programmed and correctly functioning elements (C) Everything can be explained by the programming, but unless you're looking at the code and you find something that actual programmers couldn't, there's no basis on which you can make that judgment. Semicolon (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
(A) How do you determine intent?
Only the original developers can, of course. And this is exactly why wavedashing is such a debated feature: some think it was intentional, some think it was accidental. Ever heard "it's not a bug, it's a feature"? This describes the conflict of expectations between the developer and the user.
(B) That's not the right definition of a glitch; a glitch is some malfunction of game programming.
You are just saying the same thing, really. How do you define "malfunction"? Yeah, one thing malfunctions when it behaves differently from what it was originally intended. Even when one just wants to hurt others, a gun does not "malfunction" when it kills people, because that was its original intention. No matter how one intended to use it, the weapon was designed to be lethal, so it might be an accident on the shooter's part, but it's not a malfunction.
Wavedashing is not a malfunction, but rather a byproduct of the use of programmed and correctly functioning elements
The interaction between several "correctly functioning" individual elements can still produce incorrect function. The code to Jigglypuff's final smash was presumably supposed to be correctly functioning. The code which cancels movements due to landscape changes was also supposed to be correctly functioning. But the particular interaction between these two on a certain timing was not originally foreseen, and the result is now known as Gigaluff.
(C) Everything can be explained by the programming, but unless you're looking at the code and you find something that actual programmers couldn't, there's no basis on which you can make that judgment.
As I said: the final judgement whether something is a bug or not lies on who defined the original expectations. Sometimes it's very easy to guess whether they were intended or not — applications crashing and freezing, for example, are quite "obviously" unintended. Other times it's not so intuitive — it might be counter-intuitive, even (say, a certain application might want to purposefully crash on some very rare scenarios). Judging by all the discussion that goes over it, wavedashing is an example of an unintuitive aspect, where it's not easy to know if it was intended/desired or not. --Nknk (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I myself have read somewhere that wavedashing was put in on purpose. - Amycats2 (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

from what i understood, wavedashing was intended to be a technique explained in the manual, but the way it looks just seems glitchy. Kperfekt722 (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no way the developers intentioned on a technique which allows some characters to move faster even than their normal run. That's my opinion. Zixor (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Again wavedash is a physics exploit. A glitch is an error in programming. The slide from an airdodge is part of the physics. They didn't intend for this to be a technique, so its a exploit, NOT a glitch.

Sakurai even admitted back in April that he knew about it in Melee before release as well (google the interview and paste the link someone). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaXzero (talkcontribs) 03:21, November 14, 2008

http://wowriot.gameriot.com/blogs/Get-Your-Tournament/Report-Sakurai-knew-about-wavedashing-took-it-out-to-even-the-playing-field here's a link... Friedbeef1 Screech 03:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

MetaXzero, if you have no knowledge in either software development or project management, it'd help if you didn't start making things up.
Regarding your claim on the interview, I found this: [1], where the following is quoted:
Sakurai: Of course, we noticed that you could do that during the development period.
Pay attention to the word "noticed". You don't "notice" things you just intentionally created. You won't see Sakurai saying "yeah, I noticed Mario was a playable character". This quote actually settles for once the fact that it was an unintended behavior.
Then, if it was unintended, why didn't they "fix" it? Because they had limited resources. Fixing it is probably not a five-minute task, and it's not very wise to waste time on it when, say, half the moves of a character are not working. If you think programs are only released when they have no bugs, you couldn't be further from the truth: it's nearly impossible to fix every single known issue in a sufficiently large system. There were over 50,000 known bugs (not counting the ones which were reported but not acknowledged by the developers) in the Mozilla code base back in June, some of them almost ten years old, but somehow that didn't stop them from releasing Firefox 3. And like Sakurai said, it didn't have a very high priority (but since it had one to begin with, it means he'd take it off if he had the time, proving then that not only it wasn't intended, but it wasn't desired either).
And finally, regarding your weasel words for "it's part of the physics", I'll repeat: computers are deterministic machines. That means every aspect of software is a consequence of its mechanics, intended or not. Yes, even Gigaluff is a byproduct of the game's mechanics. You can't justify anything by that. --Nknk (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The slide from the Melee airdodge is the same as the slide from being slammed into the ground at an angle. Are you going to claim that is unintended too (even though that is in ALL Smash games)?

Also, hacking Melee's airdodge into Brawl reveals that wavedashing is still possible. They didn't remove wavedashing, they changed the airdodge to render it impossible.

Glitches=error in programming (Samus Superwavedash, Ness yo-yo glitch, Ice Climbers freeze glitch). Physics exploit=unintended result of the physics engine doing WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TOO! (Wavedash as an Advanced Technique).

If they didn't intend the slide itself, PAL versions shouldn't have had it and Brawl shouldn't show it's STILL THERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MetaXzero (talkcontribs) 20:29, 22 November 2008

^ so heres a good example": you know how floaty Luigi is right? so have Mario hit Luigi at like 50% with a down smash and have Luigi crouch cancel the hit. Luigi then SLIDES across the stage... if you take out wavedash (if one calls it a glitch), then theoretically, luigi should NOT slide because you are taking out the physics of the game. it's definitely not a glitch, but a physics exploit. Maybe it wasn't intended, but if you take it out, its getting rid of the essential metagame; why don't we take out DI with it? you weren't intended to do some things with- just watch perfect control by superdoodleman.68.158.137.6 14:25, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

To all of you guys calling it an exploit, not a glitch:

An exploit (from the verb to exploit, in the meaning of using something to one’s own advantage) is a piece of software, a chunk of data, or sequence of commands that takes advantage of a bug, glitch or vulnerability in order to cause unintended or unanticipated behaviour to occur on computer software, hardware, or something electronic (usually computerised).

If you're calling it an exploit, you're also calling it a glitch. Honestly, you're all doing nothing but playing mental gymnastics to somehow justify the fact that you heavily abuse a glitch. --Raikuga

Wavesmashing

How do you wavesmash? Wavedashes don't seem to last long enough for me to attack. Do you have to wavedash multiple times simulatiously to attack while wavedashing? Am I just not fast enough? This information should be included in the article. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:11, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Wavesmashing is rather simple, you just do a smash attack while you're sliding. Obviously there's only enough time to do so with the C-stick. Toomai Glittershine Toomai.png The Stats Guy 02:36, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

Bias

In recognition of recent changes to the wavedash page:


I'm pretty tired of bias and favoritism here. Please don't add things to the wavedash page like "Brawl is a terrible game." I even agree with you in ways, too! But guess what? It's not about that! It's about FACTS.

Is it a fact that Melee is the best game ever, or wavedashing is the best game mechanic ever? Both valid and fine opinions, but fact? NO. IT SHOULD NOT BE ON THIS WIKI. Same for putting down Brawl.

Please Stop Biasing, you guys. It's stupid and me/other people (you know, the correct ones) are going to continue to UNDO all your changes that should be UNDONE.

FACT, not OPINION. Know the difference? They taught me in Kindergarten. That means there's a small chance you MIGHT know the difference.

You guys must have something better to do than continuing to crap on this page with your favoritism.

End of rant. Good day. Sorry if I made anyone cry, I haven't slept in like 4 days. Drybones08 (talk) 05:58, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not crying, I'm sobbing at how poorly structured this whole thing was. Ah, it isn't biased, you're just reading it wrong. Try again.Easyitup (talk) 05:45, August 6, 2013 (UTC)


Amuse me. Tell me how it's not biased. You try again.

I'll tell you. By signing your comments with ~~~~ is good for starters. Easyitup (talk) 05:51, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Provide a source, please. I3rian2 (talk) 05:52, August 6, 2013 (UTC)



other people join in here: Tell me if this sounds Opinionated.

"Wavedashing is inarguably the best mechanic ever included in any video game, and is part of why Melee is the best game of all time." "This is the main reason why Brawl is a terrible game."

Also, I know. I got the notification to use my sig with a Drybones08 (talk) 05:54, August 6, 2013 (UTC). What if I don't want to? ANYWAY, how does that help your case?

If you cannot provide a source, your claims do not belong on this Wiki. I3rian2 (talk) 05:55, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Source for what? Tell me, what do I need a source for? Drybones08 (talk) 05:57, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact that wavedashing is the best mechanic is any video game. If you want to refute this, you must have a source to back you up. I3rian2 (talk) 05:58, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Is that what you think? Tell me ma'am, what is your source FOR it being the best mechanic? I do like it and have used it a lot, but it does not belong in a factual document. That's all I'm saying. Tell me how, in any way, this is a fact as opposed to an opinion. Please, humor me. Because right now you sound ridiculous.

Stock Mode is inarguably the best mode in Super Smash Bros. This is an example of an opinion. I'm not going to tell you you need a source to tell me your OPINION is different.

Can you tell me the difference between fact and opinion? Drybones08 (talk) 06:01, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Your statements are null. You need a source. Easyitup (talk) 06:04, August 6, 2013 (UTC)


You KNOW that makes no sense. I can't wait until an admin comes on here and tells you you're totally wrong about me needing a source. Why don't you go ask an admin right now to determine who's right? See what happens then?

You know what my source is though? My source is COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DO NOT NEED A SOURCE TO SAY THAT AN OPINION DOES NOT BELONG IN A FACTUAL DOCUMENT.

Here's a source for people on your level, however. http://www.studyzone.org/testprep/ela4/a/factopinionl.cfm

Drybones08 (talk) 06:10, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

That "source" says nothing about wavedashing. I3rian2 (talk) 06:12, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Do I honestly need to teach you grade-school level knowledge? Please, tell me what you're struggling with:

Super Smash Bros. is a video game. FACT Super Smash Bros. is a horrible video game. OPINION. Wavedashing is a mechanic. FACT. Wavedashing is a horrible mechanic. OPINION.


And if you don't follow that, please tell me EXACTLY what I need a source for. Do I need a source saying wavedashing isn't the best mechanic? Is that what you want? Because I could type that right now and call it my source.

WAVEDASHING IS NOT THE BEST MECHANIC IN ANY GAME EVER.

That's my source.

Tell me if you comprehend, and in the meantime, how old even are you? I don't want to expect too much. Super Smash Bros, I often forget, is also played by children. Drybones08 (talk) 18:43, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

You are not a credible source. My age is irrelevant; don't strawman. I bet you're a child, anyway. I3rian2 (talk) 18:53, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Tell me now: What am I not a credible source FOR? Go ahead, tell me. IN SPECIFIC. Drybones08 (talk) 19:14, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

You are not a credible source to claim anything about wavedashing. Where's your successful tournament results? I3rian2 (talk) 19:18, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Where are yours? ^__^ Drybones08 (talk) 19:19, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Please, stop arguing with a troll. It's too painful to watch. 123JamesHeart 19:24, August 6, 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've made it out of pools. I3rian2 (talk) 19:25, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

You know what I just noticed? It's the end of the argument because fact prevails. Nice talking with you. Drybones08 (talk) 19:50, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, fact does prevail, and you are giving up because you cannot disprove it. Not nice talking with you. I3rian2 (talk) 19:55, August 6, 2013 (UTC)


Some sportsmanship! And in fact, you lost if you look back on the page. The opinions aren't there anymore. Meaning, I got what this whole thing was about. So um, I guess I can't disprove it and I see the science loophole you're talking about, and it is a very annoying one, but um... I won. So, nice talking to you.

Drybones08 (talk) 20:29, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

>Some sportsmanship!
>it is a very annoying one, but um... I won. So, nice talking to you.
You were saying? I3rian2 (talk) 20:32, August 6, 2013 (UTC)


This can go on forever, I'll have you know. FOREVER. You're making a huge commitment to go against the truth, because you'll always be undone. Drybones08 (talk) 20:34, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

You still need a source. I3rian2 (talk) 20:35, August 6, 2013 (UTC)


Just wait awhile. You'll have your source right on this page. Drybones08 (talk) 20:45, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.