• 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.

Indexing scaling chains and calc values

Status
Not open for further replies.
LordTracer said:
Uh, ew. As I’ve said before, I think people should be allowed to index the value a character scales to in their justification if they want to, but not like that. It should just be something simple like this:
Tier (Justification [Value they scale to])
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
...That's literally the format that they were showing.
LIFE_OF_KING said:
Use this for a better reference of how a profile would look like
Click to expand...
Attack Potency: Small Building level+ (Can damage and kill Headhunter despite her superior equipment and assistance from others, who is able to survive explosions which are capable to pulverize a whole floor [0.2184 Tons of TNT][5]
Click to expand...
Great that you also admit it looks ugly though, more points for my suggestion.
 
ElajRuengies said:
...That's literally the format that they were showing.


Great that you also admit it looks ugly though, more points for my suggestion.
Click to expand...
… no, it’s clearly not. What they linked shows the value for every single calculation in the middle justification as opposed to just putting the value that the character scales to at the end. I’m not sure why you cut off the justification as if that was the whole thing.

Also, I never said it looks ugly
 
Last edited:
LordTracer said:
… no, it’s clearly not. What they linked shows the value for every single calculation in the middle justification as opposed to just putting the value that the character scales to at the end. I’m not sure why you cut off the justification as if that was the whole thing.

Also, I never said it looks ugly
Click to expand...
The first three links are references and the one in bold is to just one calc.
 
Oh wait I see what you mean-

But even then that's not a change in the format, it's just the format applied to cases where the stat value is At least [X level], possibly [Y level]- loads of profiles have that, and multiple bolded value inserts would be needed.

Or is it the use of footnotes that's bugging you with the example given?
 
ElajRuengies said:
But even then that's not a change in the format, it's just the format applied to cases where the stat value is At least [X level], possibly [Y level]- loads of profiles have that, and multiple bolded value inserts would be needed.
Click to expand...
You’re still not understanding me. I don’t have a problem with multiple on the profile, I have a problem with multiple in the same justification.
Attack Potency: Small Building level+ (Can damage and kill Headhunter despite her superior equipment and assistance from others, who is able to survive explosionswhich are capable to pulverize a whole floor [0.2184 Tons of TNT][5]. Can cut through heavy machine guns. Can match in a duel of strength against Mr.Kissface and later kill him, who can took explosions without any damage [0.04130 Tons of TNT][1]. Destroyed part of a building [0.00932 tons of TNT][13] and a wooden floor more than ten meters long [0.0103 Tons of TNT][8])
Click to expand...
The only value that needs to be listed in this justification is the 0.2184 Tons value, since that’s presumably the value that the character scales to. All the other values in this justification are unnecessary.
 
LordTracer said:
You’re still not understanding me. I don’t have a problem with multiple on the profile, I have a problem with multiple in the same justification.

The only value that needs to be listed in this justification is the 0.2184 Tons value, since that’s presumably the value that the character scales to. All the other values in this justification are unnecessary.
Click to expand...
Ah, I was looking at a different AP section in the sandbox.

Yeah, that's atrocious by any metric.
 
LordTracer said:
The only value that needs to be listed in this justification is the 0.2184 Tons value, since that’s presumably the value that the character scales to. All the other values in this justification are unnecessary.
Click to expand...
this is the ideal conclusion, since the primary purpose of it is really just convenience of knowing what exactly the character scales to instantly, which helps in vs. threads
ByAsura said:
I prefer to just link the calculation to the tier, and then add the supporting feats afterwards, like so.

Large Island level (Can reduce celestial bodies to ionized plasma.[1] Bombarded Alvega[2])

It's less intrusive and saves words.
Click to expand...
I think you're vastly overestimating how many words are saved by removing a single value out of multiple sentences. I don't see how the miniscule amount of space saved is worth more than the convenience of not having to click through bs to find the value.
 
I'm not over or underestimating anything, I'm just saying I personally prefer profiles (especially if they're quite long) to be streamlined.

I also don't claim to represent anyone else/the majority.
 
if it's up to personal preference, and everyone here is aware of that fact, then there's 0 reason to not make it optional
 
ZillertheBucko said:
if it's up to personal preference, and everyone here is aware of that fact, then there's 0 reason to not make it optional
Click to expand...
It would give rise to edit-wars back and forth if we allow it to be up to personal preference. We need a common agreed upon format, and given that the vast majority of our pages do not use energy values, it would take enormous amounts of work to apply this new format in a streamlined manner.
 
I mean, I don't really see how just mentioning their AP value hurts anybody, as they're more easier to navigate around than just going around tediously clicking through profile through profile just to find a correct value that the characters actually scale to. Especially for verses that rely on multipliers for their scalings. I disagree with getting rid of those. As this method is very useful for those profiles to remain their reliability, just getting rid of those won't benefit them.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me, but we make those blog posts precisely for people to see, we don't just want to give them the result, we also want to explain how we arrived at that result.

I can't help but share the same opinion as Mr.Bambu, this format looks horrible and is made for the chronically lazy.
 
Therefir said:
Forgive me, but we make those blog posts precisely for people to see, we don't just want to give them the result, we also want to explain how we arrived at that result.

I can't help but share the same opinion as Mr.Bambu, this format looks horrible and is made for the chronically lazy.
Click to expand...
We have no reason as to for hiding values at all. And no, it isn't just about laziness, it's just more freely nagivation which I still fail to see has hurt anyone.
 
I'm afraid I share my sentiments with Therefir.

People should make an effort to see how we obtained that value and why we obtained it that way.
 
Also, we list all of the relevant calculations in our verse pages, and I think that I even mentioned this in the front page of our wiki.
 
So let me get this straight
the idea is to make things slightly more inconvenient, to make people who want to see a calculation value be forced to look at a blog...a blog that they are not going to read, because they are going to be looking for a calc value, not an AP justification or the calculation process
This quite literally serves absolutely zero purpose. This isn't a situation where it makes any sense whatsoever to force people to go through more effort to get to what they want, and anybody who is looking for the calc value isn't going to care about most of the stuff in blogs.

And we need a "common agreed upon format"? You guys remember standard tactics? Yeah, guess people didn't agree with that much.

Either way, it's shown that, even without the existence of this crt, there are multiple users who already preferred the alternate formatting, and basically everybody I've talked to off-site and on-site also agrees that it is better. I don't know what you think this is doing, but I can confirm firsthand that the only thing this is actually doing is making things more inconvenient for people in a way that helps nobody.
Mash Burnedead's profile has gotten mainly positive reception, and I was extremely relieved to immediately get the information I was looking for when entering a vs thread and checking the profile. This is literally what people want, and there's no point in trying to go against the audience here.
 
ZillertheBucko said:
So let me get this straight
the idea is to make things slightly more inconvenient, to make people who want to see a calculation value be forced to look at a blog...a blog that they are not going to read, because they are going to be looking for a calc value, not an AP justification or the calculation process
This quite literally serves absolutely zero purpose. This isn't a situation where it makes any sense whatsoever to force people to go through more effort to get to what they want, and anybody who is looking for the calc value isn't going to care about most of the stuff in blogs.

And we need a "common agreed upon format"? You guys remember standard tactics? Yeah, guess people didn't agree with that much.

Either way, it's shown that, even without the existence of this crt, there are multiple users who already preferred the alternate formatting, and basically everybody I've talked to off-site and on-site also agrees that it is better. I don't know what you think this is doing, but I can confirm firsthand that the only thing this is actually doing is making things more inconvenient for people in a way that helps nobody.
Mash Burnedead's profile has gotten mainly positive reception, and I was extremely relieved to immediately get the information I was looking for when entering a vs thread and checking the profile. This is literally what people want, and there's no point in trying to go against the audience here.
Click to expand...
What do our staff members here think about this?
 
I’m still in agreement with Ziller. Especially on the point about the formatting stuff, our own standard format has optional parts to it, namely Standard Tactics, Feats (the section, obviously, not feats in general) and Notable Attacks/Techniques. There’s nothing wrong with adding another optional thing that people can add if they want to, and don’t have to add if they don’t want to.

Also, listing the values on the profiles would make it significantly easier for new users. They could just find the profile they’re looking for, see exactly what they scale to, and then be on their way. That’s a lot easier than forcing them to go out of their way to the verse page or to a even farther removed blog to find out where one character scales.
 
LordTracer said:
I’m still in agreement with Ziller. Especially on the point about the formatting stuff, our own standard format has optional parts to it, namely Standard Tactics, Feats (the section, obviously, not feats in general) and Notable Attacks/Techniques. There’s nothing wrong with adding another optional thing that people can add if they want to, and don’t have to add if they don’t want to.

Also, listing the values on the profiles would make it significantly easier for new users. They could just find the profile they’re looking for, see exactly what they scale to, and then be on their way. That’s a lot easier than forcing them to go out of their way to the verse page or to a even farther removed blog to find out where one character scales.
Click to expand...
Listing the values can be done on the page but in the form of a notes section. Same way that references work. Which seems like the best compromise to me.
 
Well, it seems like our members have already begun to insert quite a lot of energy values into our attack potency sections.

I am personally currently neutral regarding the issue and haven't have the time and energy to remove them continuously.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr._Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler

This is a significant change to our wiki layout formatting.

What do you think? Is it more convenient for our visitors to list the energy values for characters and their special attacks and power-ups within the attack potency sections, or does it look too ugly and out of place for our page structures?
 
Antvasima said:
What do you think? Is it more convenient for our visitors to list the energy values for characters and their special attacks and power-ups within the attack potency sections, or does it look too ugly and out of place for our page structures?
Click to expand...
My vote is that if people do feel the need to include the specific values in the justification sections, that they take advantage of the existing note functionality so when people hover over it they will be given the value as a tooltip.

Instead of writing it as a bolded value that is always present on the page (sometimes many bolded values if the characters has multiple keys/multiple values).
 
Damage3245 said:
My vote is that if people do feel the need to include the specific values in the justification sections, that they take advantage of the existing note functionality so when people hover over it they will be given the value as a tooltip.

Instead of writing it as a bolded value that is always present on the page (sometimes many bolded values if the characters has multiple keys/multiple values).
Click to expand...
Oh. That seems like a good idea, but it may be too unfamiliar for most of our editors to use currently.

Would it be a good idea if you create an instruction thread in our staff forum regarding the issue, after which we send a notification to all of our current administrators and content moderators, and I also highlight the thread, so our staff and regular members can help with finding and replacing the current more clunkily displayed energy values?
 
Damage3245 said:
My vote is that if people do feel the need to include the specific values in the justification sections, that they take advantage of the existing note functionality so when people hover over it they will be given the value as a tooltip.

Instead of writing it as a bolded value that is always present on the page (sometimes many bolded values if the characters has multiple keys/multiple values).
Click to expand...
1st, as brought up, that will be notably more difficult to add for the common user, and it is more likely just going to end up becoming mostly unused as a result, rather than people going the extra mile, even if in theory it’s not the most time consuming or difficult thing.

2nd, and more importantly, it defeats the intended purpose of the formatting, which is to clearly lay out the value in a way that people can instantly know what value is being scaled to, in other words, it is meant to entirely remove any click for the sake of user convenience
while it is certainly better than nothing, it still is less preferable

3rd, I have also heard from multiple sources that there’s a big increase in the number of users who go with the original proposed formatting, despite no official stance having been taken on making it a standard yet. In other words, does this not mean that in general, there is a large amount of users who naturally find this system better? In that case, rather than just taking my word for it, this would actually prove that it is more convenient for many people, and thus it would be unnecessary to remove it from existing profiles, as that would only serve to make it less convenient to those who have already agreed amongst themselves that it’s a better formatting.
 
Those also seem like reasonable points.
 
ZillertheBucko said:
1st, as brought up, that will be notably more difficult to add for the common user, and it is more likely just going to end up becoming mostly unused as a result, rather than people going the extra mile, even if in theory it’s not the most time consuming or difficult thing.
Click to expand...
Sure, but users will learn and it's no different than user's learning to add references to pages.

ZillertheBucko said:
2nd, and more importantly, it defeats the intended purpose of the formatting, which is to clearly lay out the value in a way that people can instantly know what value is being scaled to, in other words, it is meant to entirely remove any click for the sake of user convenience
while it is certainly better than nothing, it still is less preferable
Click to expand...
I know. I disagree with the intended purpose of the original idea.

ZillertheBucko said:
3rd, I have also heard from multiple sources that there’s a big increase in the number of users who go with the original proposed formatting, despite no official stance having been taken on making it a standard yet. In other words, does this not mean that in general, there is a large amount of users who naturally find this system better? In that case, rather than just taking my word for it, this would actually prove that it is more convenient for many people, and thus it would be unnecessary to remove it from existing profiles, as that would only serve to make it less convenient to those who have already agreed amongst themselves that it’s a better formatting.
Click to expand...
I don't think that using the notes would be any less convenient in truth. Not to a degree significant enough that having the bolded values always present would be the better option.
 
Damage3245 said:
Sure, but users will learn and it's no different than user's learning to add references to pages.
Click to expand...
References are already something that, if I remember correctly, aren’t being utilized as they should be to begin with, so I’m not sure if that helps.
 
Let me bring a hypothetical for a moment
Justifications can include basically as many words as they want, they’re full of scaling and supporting feats and explain everything. Let’s say a random character is 7-B, and his justification looks like this:
Attack Potency: City Level (made an explosion this big {link would be inserted there}, which is equivalent to 18 megatons of tnt) or something along those lines
I would default to assuming that this is not a problematic justification
now watch
Attack Potency: City Level [18 megatons] (made an explosion this big)
It gets the same amount of information across and has virtually no impact on taking up space or anything. The only difference is that it makes the AP value more clearly visible and conveniently accessible, and is otherwise absolutely no different.
So with this put into a more direct comparison, can you point out where exactly option B causes more problems than option A? In a situation like this, is there actually any real detriment compared to our normal system of just having the AP justification there?
 
Attack Potency: City Level (made an explosion this big {link would be inserted there}, which is equivalent to 18 megatons of tnt) or something along those lines
Click to expand...

This example isn't one that uses the notes suggestion that I made. We don't word profiles like this anyway with the "which is equivalent to 18 megatons of tnt".
 
Damage3245 said:
This example isn't one that uses the notes suggestion that I made. We don't word profiles like this anyway with the "which is equivalent to 18 megatons of tnt".
Click to expand...
The exact wording isn’t vital at least, the idea is that there has never been any kind of problem with just happening to mention the AP value inside of the traditional AP justification, so doing the same thing while making an important piece of information like that more prominent cannot be a bad thing.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, it seems like our members have already begun to insert quite a lot of energy values into our attack potency sections.

I am personally currently neutral regarding the issue and haven't have the time and energy to remove them continuously.

This is a significant change to our wiki layout formatting.

What do you think? Is it more convenient for our visitors to list the energy values for characters and their special attacks and power-ups within the attack potency sections, or does it look too ugly and out of place for our page structures?
Click to expand...
I don't like that. I prefer including multipliers and the like in the calculations that are linked from the profiles.
 
Kira's profile has a good compromise for this.
https://media.**********.net/attachments/793193070966734849/1142589671965216788/image.png

Honestly, people should do as they want to. If I don't like how a profile looks like I won't ***** about it, as long as it isn't part of the ones I take care of. Just let people be creative doing new and nice stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Arkenis
Primordial Chaos Energy Values
2
Replies
64
Views
6K
Arkenis
Arkenis
Jinx666
Vs Battle Wiki values are becoming a meme
10 11 12
Replies
456
Views
41K
Giannysmag
Giannysmag
PowerToScale
  • Locked
JJK: Mechamaru update and values update
Replies
10
Views
2K
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
THEEWILDCARD
Mario and Luigi vs Garou
Replies
23
Views
2K
Kurokitomo
Kurokitomo
LoudCloud
What's the consensus around using Furyoku/Reiryoku values to scale Shaman King characters?
Replies
2
Views
937
Enigmatic_Rurouni
Enigmatic_Rurouni
Back
Top