Small Tweaks to Invulnerability

[Antvasima]

Which staff members have thought what here so far in summary?

 

[Armorchompy]

FinePoint agrees with changing the name, so do I, Agnaa was mildly in favor of it, DDM agreed

I think you've voiced your neutrality?

Glass and Vietthai disagree.

 

[Armorchompy]

Why are we even changing name anyway, while i can understand that sometime the term "invulnerability" is simply "very durable", but that shouldn't be the basis for name changing. In the end, we still need to evaluate ability

Because it's misleading. The name creates issues and while they can be addressed in the body of the power page that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Lastly, if we actually change it to Damage Negation, better make a section for it in power null and delete the current page cause it is no different from nullifying power

No it isn't. It's negating damage, which can be done through various means, can come from any source regardless of its origin and very often isn't a power at all (unless you think a rock falling on you is Superhuman Physical Characteristics or something). It's further away from Power Nullification than half the powers on this site are from Reality Warping.

We do get to see other ability names be tossed around like Possession or Corruption and they do what’s listed on the wiki even if there’s small changes and variations on how these abilities are done.

Correct, meanwhile the term Invulnerability does NOT do what we list it as by most people's use of the word. That's the whole problem.

Literally nothing in your explanation for the power stars remotely mention it being a stat boost for durability, nothing mentions that so why are you saying it’s only a durability boost when nothing says such on the page?

Just not being stated to be a durability boost is nowhere near enough to qualify for the power, you need an explicit mechanism through which the ability is negating AP altogether (in the same way that having a move that can one-shot anything isn't enough to grant durability negation if it can be reasonably assumed to just be AP). I'd refer you to the previous accepted thread on the power that directly rejected similar powers as not qualifying for Invulnerability, and I quote:

"I think it makes more sense to concretely define Invulnerability as Attack Potency Negation, more strictly establishing it as abilities that render offensive force irrelevant"
"Doomguy has invulnerability listed with the Invulnerability Sphere. It does make him immune to everything within the context of his fighting, but there's no evidence or mechanic that would make it sidestep AP entirely"
"We should require evidence of a mechanic that works outside the bounds of normal AP, and not just give it out for being called indestructible or invulnerable or whatever the same way we wouldn't give out dura neg for random statement of "this gun can pierce anything" or whatever."

In addition I would point you to agreed upon conclusions from earlier on in this thread:

"As such, merely being stated to be invulnerable does not qualify a character for the power, nor does the ability to withstand attacks without damage. Only characters who are clearly gifted with the power to ignore or negate received attacks through means separate from their durability may qualify for this power."
"To qualify for Invulnerability, there must be an intelligible mechanism for how the ability negates attacks, no matter their strength, without falling under the purview of another defensive ability."

Mario's Power Stars make Mario invulnerable to damage within the boundaries of his verse but there is no evidence that they do this through unique mechanisms that would negate ANY kind of damage no matter its level of power (or really, anything hinting that not just simply a durability boost).

You are frankly flatly incorrect about this power. Do not argue further from this position because it is objectively erroneous according to our standards.

 

[Antvasima]

FinePoint agrees with changing the name, so do I, Agnaa was mildly in favor of it, DDM agreed

I think you've voiced your neutrality?

Glass and Vietthai disagree.

Thank you for the information.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Armorchompy What exactly does being Invincible mean exactly? Especially when it's an item that grants Mario characters this specific ability in the first place? None of the scans are remotely mentioning stat amp so everything you're arguing is completely presumptuous.

@Antvasima I'm fine with a rewording of the ability to be better defined on what does or doesn't count as Invulnerability, but I'm opposed changing the name outright as it accomplishes nothing.

 

[Armorchompy]

@Armorchompy What exactly does being Invincible mean exactly?

I love that you're arguing that the name changing means nothing while using the name as your main argument for something that definitely doesn't qualify for the ability. Like it directly proves that it leads to misinformation.

Especially when it's an item that grants Mario characters this specific ability in the first place? None of the scans are remotely mentioning stat amp so everything you're arguing is completely presumptuous.

How many more times do I need to repeat that this is nowhere near enough? "Just" being invincible to harm without evidence that this is through some AP-negating mechanism is nowhere near enough to get you Invincibility. The fact that they don't say it's a durability amp in no way implies that it's not one when that is the most logical and safest assumption. To simplify it here's a list of what you need for invincibility:

• The ability to actually be immune to damage - and I note that being "invulnerable" to in-game damage isn't enough. Something like an Invulnerability sphere in DOOM (1993) isn't going to save classic Doomguy from getting his head punched off by Goku just because it stops a Cacodemon fireball, that's a classic NLF. Those are currently listed as Invulnerability, but that's just poor indexing, the page itself even provides evidence that they're a dura amp.
• Said invulnerability not stemming from durability. Not being said to is not enough, I would point to something like a recent JJK thread where it was shown to me that very high-power characters still couldn't hurt low power cursed spirits without the proper tools
• A mechanic behind the invulnerability. For example the Siberian has the ability to selectively permit physics to affect his projection, meaning the energy of an attack simply doesn't transfer to it. This other character can stop her personal time meaning nothing can ever affect her (since a change can't happen in zero time).

Mario has maybe half of the first point, and then nothing else.

@Antvasima I'm fine with a rewording of the ability to be better defined on what does or doesn't count as Invulnerability, but I'm opposed changing the name outright as it accomplishes nothing.

I should note, I think Vietthai is also in this boat.

 

[Armorchompy]

@Antvasima would it be good for me to make a draft and you then can tag a bunch of staff so this can be concluded?

 

[Vietthai96]

I think Vietthai is also in this boat

Huh?, what boat?

Anyway, i'm not a fan of changing ability name because people take the namedrop in fiction too literal and think it qualify for the ability. We are literally treating this issue as the ability's fault while in truth it is user's error in their interpretation

Like if there is a instruction paper, I didn't read it carefully and made an error, somehow the blame is on the instruction paper instead of me

 

[Armorchompy]

Huh?, what boat?

"Fine with the other suggestions, doesn't want the name changed"

Anyway, i'm not a fan of changing ability name because people take the namedrop in fiction too literal and think it qualify for the ability. We are literally treating this issue as the ability's fault while in truth it is user's error in their interpretation

A lot of things can be blamed on the user but our goal should be to make things as simple and intuitive as possible for them.

 

[Agnaa]

How many more times do I need to repeat that this is nowhere near enough? "Just" being invincible to harm without evidence that this is through some AP-negating mechanism is nowhere near enough to get you Invincibility. The fact that they don't say it's a durability amp in no way implies that it's not one when that is the most logical and safest assumption. To simplify it here's a list of what you need for invincibility:

• The ability to actually be immune to damage - and I note that being "invulnerable" to in-game damage isn't enough. Something like an Invulnerability sphere in DOOM (1993) isn't going to save classic Doomguy from getting his head punched off by Goku just because it stops a Cacodemon fireball, that's a classic NLF. Those are currently listed as Invulnerability, but that's just poor indexing, the page itself even provides evidence that they're a dura amp.
• Said invulnerability not stemming from durability. Not being said to is not enough, I would point to something like a recent JJK thread where it was shown to me that very high-power characters still couldn't hurt low power cursed spirits without the proper tools
• A mechanic behind the invulnerability. For example the Siberian has the ability to selectively permit physics to affect his projection, meaning the energy of an attack simply doesn't transfer to it. This other character can stop her personal time meaning nothing can ever affect her (since a change can't happen in zero time).

Mario has maybe half of the first point, and then nothing else.

I would like to prod what your limits on this are since, as evidenced from the JJK thread, you don't require a mechanism.

If certain RPG characters have an invulnerability/immunity buff/status which is separate from a defence/armor stat, do you think that should be enough to get Invulnerability?

Should situations like the move Protect in Pokemon qualify, since we can tell that it doesn't temporarily amplify defensive stats, and is sometimes described using terms like "negates all damage"?

Potential anti-feats from broader context aside, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that these cases satisfy those first two requirements.

 

[Armorchompy]

I would like to prod what your limits on this are since, as evidenced from the JJK thread, you don't require a mechanism.

Well I did think there was a mechanism there. You left the discussion before supporters could super confirm it but cursed energy seemed to me like something you needed to actually interact with curses (kind of like Intangibility, only you can touch them, just not affect them - in fact I think the weaker versions can't even be touched which strengthens the connection). I think that generally if there is very clear treatment of the power as we require it you can infer a mechanism a little bit, and JJK seemed to be at the very least implying that existed with its behavior.

I was open to looking into that more and potentially changing my mind (which is why I tagged King for elaboration in one response) but you left the thread and I wasn't interested in debating vs myself.

If certain RPG characters have an invulnerability/immunity buff/status which is separate from a defence/armor stat, do you think that should be enough to get Invulnerability?

Should situations like the move Protect in Pokemon qualify, since we can tell that it doesn't temporarily amplify defensive stats, and is sometimes described using terms like "negates all damage"?

No, because neither of these are shown to downright ignore/bypass power. You can clearly describe both of these as a durability thing (first as temporary stat amp, latter as a forcefield). JJK had statements of "it doesn't matter how strong you are" vs curses of much lesser durability that you'd be able to one-shot with the proper NPI, which I thought to be a good hint that durability wasn't what was going on and it was a hax ability of some sort. The only other interpretation was conditional durability but that to me seemed like a stretch.

 

[Agnaa]

No, because neither of these are shown to downright ignore/bypass power. You can clearly describe both of these as a durability thing (first as temporary stat amp, latter as a forcefield).

I think that argument's harder to make, since there is a way of representing durability, which those things skirt around.

It's not like they're just being set at 9999 def or something.

JJK had statements of "it doesn't matter how strong you are" vs curses of much lesser durability that you'd be able to one-shot with the proper NPI, which I thought to be a good hint that durability wasn't what was going on and it was a hax ability of some sort.

Protection moves, in Pokemon, can be bypassed by a select few moves and abilities which are dedicated ways to bypass them. It's not like those moves and abilities let them one-shot when protection moves aren't being used. And in other media it's not always presented as a separate forcefield.

But I don't think there's anything about "no matter how strong you are", so you could draw the line there.

 

[Armorchompy]

I think that argument's harder to make, since there is a way of representing durability, which those things skirt around.

I disagree with that. "Durability" isn't a simple unique stat the way we index it, neither IRL nor in most games (after all most RPGs have both a "defense" and a "hit points" statistic which both play into surviving attacks). There is never really a reason to assume a big "you do not take damage" button is bypassing durability altogether rather than just being a different representation of it, in the same way that both a Dragon Quest Metal Slime (extremely high maxed out defense, takes 1 dmg from anything but has extremely low HP) and Chansey (pathetic base defense, extremely high base HP) would be assumed to have high durability despite lacking in one of the two stats, rather than a hax ability that makes up for their low dura.

Protection moves, in Pokemon, can be bypassed by a select few moves and abilities which are dedicated ways to bypass them. It's not like those moves and abilities let them one-shot when protection moves aren't being used. And in other media it's not always presented as a separate forcefield.

But I don't think there's anything about "no matter how strong you are", so you could draw the line there.

That's a big aspect of it for me. But I think JJK was teetering pretty close to having a mechanism, just a semi-implicit one, which is why I accepted it.

 

[Antvasima]

Would it be a good idea to tighten and clarify the definition text of our "Invulnerability" standards and then go through and remove all current inappropriate additions of the power afterwards, as I am not sure if merely renaming the ability to "Damage Negation" would solve almost anything in terms of lessening misunderstandings, and all of the old inappropriate cases would remain until we remove them?

However, it would require a lot of work, and likely a public thread for finding inappropriate examples to be removed, afterwards.

 

[Armorchompy]

and then go through and remove all current inappropriate uses of invulnerability afterwards, as I am not sure if renaming the ability to "Damage Negation" would solve almost anything in terms of lessening misunderstandings?

However, it would require a lot of work, and likely a public thread for finding inappropriate examples to be removed, afterwards.

I was planning to at least try something like that once this is done. The name change helps avoid future misconceptions but it's not going to undo old ones. There's a lot of bad uses of the power.

 

[Antvasima]

I had not quite finished modifying my last post before you replied.

 

[Vietthai96]

A lot of things can be blamed on the user but our goal should be to make things as simple and intuitive as possible for them.

This is what we are currently doing i guess, improve the page description and explanation, make it better guideline for reader so they can understand what the ability actually mean, when a feat or statement qualify or not, etc......

If certain RPG characters have an invulnerability/immunity buff/status which is separate from a defence/armor stat, do you think that should be enough to get Invulnerability?

I feel like these kinds of ability should somewhat qualify for the ability.

Also i want to ask that is Health Point (HP) can be considered as durability. For example a character with an infinite health that no matter how much damage said character get his HP isn't decreases

 

[Armorchompy]

This is what we are currently doing i guess, improve the page description and explanation, make it better guideline for reader so they can understand what the ability actually mean, when a feat or statement qualify or not, etc......

... And changing the name because it's confusing.

I feel like these kinds of ability should somewhat qualify for the ability.

I disagree with that. At best as a different type but functionally that'd just be "has showcased very high durability above anything they were ever exposed to", which is still just stats.

Also i want to ask that is Health Point (HP) can be considered as durability. For example a character with an infinite health that no matter how much damage said character get his HP isn't decreases

This is kind of unrelated and probably best asked elsewhere but yeah it'd be durability unless it's clarified as some kind of hax (maybe regen?). Not High 3-A since it could just be functionally infinite within the context of the setting but it'd at least scale way above anything they can tank.

I had not quite finished modifying my last post before you replied.

Seems like we basically agree then.

 

[Antvasima]

Seems like we basically agree then.

Well, I more suggested to keep the "Invulnerability" name, clarify and stricted its definitions, and do a thorough cleansing of inappropriate uses of/links to the power.

By the way, the majority of the character pages with the "Shapeshifters" category seem to only qualify for "Transformation Users", so that also needs to be handled at some point.

 

[Armorchompy]

Well, I more suggested to keep the "Invulnerability" name, clarify and stricted its definitions, and do a thorough cleansing of inappropriate uses of/links to the power.

I think that's still basically just making things worse for no reason, because even if you improve the definition (which is the plan) some people are just going to read the name and wrongfully assume they understand what it is. The rest of the stuff I just plan to do anyways.

By the way, the majority of the character pages with the "Shapeshifters" category seem to only qualify for "Transformation Users", so that also needs to be handled at some point.

There's a lot of minor category issues in VSBW. I've always taken issue with "Illusionists" since that's a kind of performing art rather than the creation of supernatural illusions. But I don't think that's to be discussed here.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that's still basically just making things worse for no reason, because even if you improve the definition (which is the plan) some people are just going to read the name and wrongfully assume they understand what it is. The rest of the stuff I just plan to do anyways.

I still think that the best solution is to do a thorough cleansing of the current errors and minimise the risk for new ones by adjusting our current definition to become as clear as possible.

 

[Armorchompy]

I still think that the best solution is to do a thorough cleansing of the current errors and minimise the risk for new ones by adjusting our current definition to become as clear as possible.

Of course, my suggestion is in addition to that.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, which I disagree with.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Armorchompy You're using Goku as an example despite the fact the guy is literally a dimensional tier higher than classic Doomguy in strength. It being a NLF would be saying the Invulnerability in DOOM would've negated anything that's 1-A or above or literally anything and everything that's above DOOM's established cosmology. An ability that literally makes it to where damage cannot happen to you isn't a NLF if they're still in the same dimensional tier, that's why smurf hax is a thing. Either way if we're going to just move onto staff votes then my stance is to that we can add elaborations on what does or doesn't count as Invulnerability, but changing the name is completely stupid and serves no purpose.

 

[Vietthai96]

I disagree with that. At best as a different type but functionally that'd just be "has showcased very high durability above anything they were ever exposed to", which is still just stats.

If it is an ability that actually make you immune to all damage and are completely separate from durability stats, then it shouldn't be an durability-improved ability, you need to prove the opposite. But anyway i think we can talk about what situation qualify, what is not in another thread. This thread is just to improve the page and solves some semantic issues

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I thought it was already supposed common sense that invincibility power ups in video games are just durability amplifications and not invulnerability hax; but the problem is a lot of users (Especially newer ones) keep adding them to profiles blindly because they don't read the pages that specifically state the rules and/or keep ignoring staff instructions that I and many others keep lecturing them for.

But I still agree to what was said before that changing the name of Invulnerability to "Attack Negations" or "Damage Nullification" or other such synonyms would be for the better to avoid such confusions in the future.

 

[KLOL506]

Seems like this needs more staff. Should I tag them?

 

[Agnaa]

@Armorchompy You're using Goku as an example despite the fact the guy is literally a dimensional tier higher than classic Doomguy in strength. It being a NLF would be saying the Invulnerability in DOOM would've negated anything that's 1-A or above or literally anything and everything that's above DOOM's established cosmology. An ability that literally makes it to where damage cannot happen to you isn't a NLF if they're still in the same dimensional tier, that's why smurf hax is a thing. Either way if we're going to just move onto staff votes then my stance is to that we can add elaborations on what does or doesn't count as Invulnerability, but changing the name is completely stupid and serves no purpose.

With our revisions of smurf hax, we don't care as much about "dimensional tier" in many cases. It's not something that makes you immune to everything lesser, it's just more energy within the same kind of space.

It's hard to get into too much detail, as it depends on the way the character lands in a higher tier, and the kind of ability. A thorough breakdown exists on our Resistance page.

However, regardless, many characters that are in Tier 2 or above can simply destroy reality, which would incapacitate the character with Invulnerability/etc. But there are a few cases of characters who lack the AoE to do that, and may very well be stopped by Invulnerability with a good mechanism.

 

[KLOL506]

Seems like this needs more staff. Should I tag them?

^^^^

 

[Armorchompy]

^^^^

I'd have liked to have a sandbox ready by then. I suppose I can work on it today

 

[Armorchompy]

@Agnaa it'd be cool if you could make Omega a profile. It's a more unique showing of the ability compared to the other examples and it helps diversify what the page showcases.

EDIT: Also if anyone has any suggestions for page pictures or other good examples I'm all ears

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa it'd be cool if you could make Omega a profile. It's a more unique showing of the ability compared to the other examples and it helps diversify what the page showcases.

It would be cool. I've done 99% of the research, and 20% of the formatting for that, but I can't bring myself to properly Release it until I've done that last bit. Which could take arbitrarily long (I hoped to have it done a year ago).

If someone else wants to, here's my Respect Thread detailing every feat he has, and here's my blog providing estimates for his stat-related feats. Both fully kitted out with scans, references, and descriptions.

 

[Armorchompy]

I'd have liked to have a sandbox ready by then. I suppose I can work on it today

I did work on it but I also looked through all the A- name characters with invincibility and a few of them actually got me to notice a fairly notable crack in our proposal. This is going to complicate things so I ask for a bit of patience.

 

[KLOL506]

I did work on it but I also looked through all the A- name characters with invincibility and a few of them actually got me to notice a fairly notable crack in our proposal. This is going to complicate things so I ask for a bit of patience.

Take your time. No rush.

 

[Armorchompy]

Alright, I'm at the point where I'm basically done, but it's also functionally a complete rewrite. Should I make a new thread where I can explain it more thoroughly?

 

[Armorchompy]

Invulnerability: Complete Rewrite and Name Change

In this previous thread a long discussion was had about the current Invulnerability page, and how it leads to a lot of bad applications of the power. I have finalized a proposal for a complete rewrite of the page, which you can view here. There's some notable changes from what I last proposed...

vsbattles.com

 

[Theglassman12]

Should this thread be closed then?

 

[Armorchompy]

Sure