• 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.

Invulnerability: Complete Rewrite and Name Change

Bump. Also
Antvasima said:
I also still disagree with the name change, and think that better descriptions within our page for the ability, combined with a methodical thorough cleansing of all inaccurate instances of using it, seems better. 🙏
Click to expand...
I'd listed you disagreement regarding the name change, but can I count you as an agreement for the actual page revision, then?
 
Your definition of type 2 seems mostly fine, but I do not think that the much more limited definition of type 1 seems to qualify as invulnerability. 🙏
 
Well... yeah, that's the whole point of making them separate. It's not any other ability we have, and it's a worthwhile indexable power. We're allowed to expand the definition so that the power includes different things and (besides the fact that having a way to index an ability is in itself a good thing) doing so can only be a positive thing. It prevents borderline cases of Invul from being mistakenly indexed as the much more powerful Type 2, it helps people understand exactly how difficult to obtain the second type is and it prevents confusion regarding what simple damage immunity should be indexed as. Without it what would you even list Type 1 as?
 
I agree with the revisions to the actual page, but hard disagree with the name change (Think we may overestimate how many people will immediately put 2 and 2 together tbh)
 
Armorchompy said:
Well... yeah, that's the whole point of making them separate. It's not any other ability we have, and it's a worthwhile indexable power. We're allowed to expand the definition so that the power includes different things and (besides the fact that having a way to index an ability is in itself a good thing) doing so can only be a positive thing. It prevents borderline cases of Invul from being mistakenly indexed as the much more powerful Type 2, it helps people understand exactly how difficult to obtain the second type is and it prevents confusion regarding what simple damage immunity should be indexed as. Without it what would you even list Type 1 as?
Click to expand...
@Antvasima
 
Also updated the vote tally. It's 6-2 for the types, 6-9 for the name change.
 

Image​

Removing the image (and eventually replacing it hopefully) is fine by me. That part's simple.

Types​

In terms of splitting into types, I'm rather neutral. I do feel this effectively serves the purpose of what's already listed on the page, where Invulnerability against all conventional attacks with some exceptions is the standard, and Invulnerability against specific ones is Limited. My concern is more if this would be worth the massive amount of work to re-categorize since it doesn't fundamentally change anything but does require specification on all existing profiles with the ability.

Name​

What I do have strong thoughts on is the name. I think it's greatly underestimated how much the name of an ability impacts one's perception of it, even if you do take the time to try and read and parse the entire page. Furthermore, fiction uses this term all the time in a completely different meaning which is downright confusing for anyone not super familiar with our standards.

We serve a wide user base, and while certain abilities do require explanation for full understanding, it's my opinion that it's a no-brainer for accessibility and to prevent confusion (which I see a LOT in threads, Invulnerability is one of the top abilities I have to reject and explain to people) to make the name as close to the definition per common use as possible.

From that perspective, renaming it to something like Damage Nullification makes it far more specific to us (so there's less confusion over the way most media actually uses the term), and a lot more self-explanatory for what we actually mean, in terms of immunity as opposed to just reduction or high durability. I genuinely think this would make it easier to understand and more likely to be applied correctly.

Still, 'Invulnerability' as a term isn't completely nonsensical either, which to me means we don't necessarily have to go through and scrub every use of the term so long as we can just have it link to Damage Negation and use that terminology going forward, and changing it when convenient.
 
FinePoint said:
In terms of splitting into types, I'm rather neutral. I do feel this effectively serves the purpose of what's already listed on the page, where Invulnerability against all conventional attacks with some exceptions is the standard, and Invulnerability against specific ones is Limited.
Click to expand...
That isn't the distinction. Type 2 invulnerability can be against specific damage types and Type 1 can be against many or all sorts of damage, the difference is some kind of mechanism that proves the power can work up to any tier (or at least any tier within the same dimensional rating). Type 1s provably have some kind of non-durability power that negates damage but can't prove that applies to any level of AP, Type 2s can justify the claim that it works up to far higher tiers than showcased
FinePoint said:
My concern is more if this would be worth the massive amount of work to re-categorize since it doesn't fundamentally change anything but does require specification on all existing profiles with the ability.
Click to expand...
In my opinion this is actually a benefit - the great majority of Invulnerability on pages would qualify as Type 1 (if they are valid at all of course which most aren't), not 2. This essentially puts the burden on the supporters to actually prove Type 2, meaning that any page with that elusive and high-power ability will have properly justified it.
 
Armorchompy said:
That isn't the distinction. Type 2 invulnerability can be against specific damage types and Type 1 can be against many or all sorts of damage, the difference is some kind of mechanism that proves the power can work up to any tier (or at least any tier within the same dimensional rating). Type 1s provably have some kind of non-durability power that negates damage but can't prove that applies to any level of AP, Type 2s can justify the claim that it works up to far higher tiers than showcased
Click to expand...
I think I understand now.

It feels a bit strange to divide based on how much is explained to us, and I'm not sure if it's a super valuable distinction (or if Type 1 here serves any real purpose not covered by other abilities then). As it stands, I think that it would be kind of impossible to prove whether someone's durability was too high or they had Type 1 which caused them to no-sell an attack. Negating an attack on its own could be power null, and ignoring it could just be high durability.

Regardless, I do like some of the clarifications you put at the bottom of the page. I wouldn't mind that be included somehow types or not.
 
FinePoint said:
It feels a bit strange to divide based on how much is explained to us, and I'm not sure if it's a super valuable distinction (or if Type 1 here serves any real purpose not covered by other abilities then). As it stands, I think that it would be kind of impossible to prove whether someone's durability was too high or they had Type 1 which caused them to no-sell an attack. Negating an attack on its own could be power null, and ignoring it could just be high durability.
Click to expand...
I think you're wrong. Type 1 absolutely serves a purpose and has unique cases that other P&A doesn't cover. Check out this thread I was asked to evaluate today. In it divine character and armor are inherently immune to all non-blessed weaponry and you need similarly divine weapons to affect them - it's 100% an ability separate from raw durability, but it doesn't qualify as "true" invulnerability and we don't have any other way to index it. Best I can suggest - and it's what I'm going to suggest but it's a slapdash solution to account for our Invulnerability page being very bad - is Damage Reduction, but it's not actually reducing damage by a percentage, it's negating it or doing nothing to it.

That's a terrible solution, whereas Type 1 would solve that case very neatly. This is a pretty common case and exactly what I am trying to address, protective abilities that are clearly a kind of hax rather than raw durability (which is quite common) but not true "Type 2" invulnerability.
 
Last edited:
Hmm. After reading what FinePoint and Armorchompy said above, I have reconsidered and currently think that these changes seem like good ideas, including the name change, as these revisions likely wouldn't make coherent logical sense without it.

However, somebody would have to go through and update all of our pages that list invulnerability as a power afterwards, and we would also have to use a mass-editing program to change our "Invulnerability Users" category to "Damage Negation Users" or "Damage Nullification Users" (I personally find the second term less likely to be misunderstood) instead. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Hmm. After reading what FinePoint and Armorchompy said above, I have reconsidered and currently think that these changes seem like good ideas, including the name change, as these revisions likely wouldn't make coherent logical sense without it.

However, somebody would have to go through and update all of our pages that list invulnerability as a power afterwards, and we would also have to use a mass-editing program to change our "Invulnerability Users" category to "Damage Negation Users" or "Damage Nullification Users" (I personally find the second term less likely to be misunderstood) instead. 🙏
Click to expand...
I appreciate it, but I'm afraid most people voted against the name change. I still personally think it's a good idea but I don't think I'd be able to actually sway most of them.
 
Hmm. Should we ping all of them to see if they are willing to reevaluate? 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
(I personally find the second term less likely to be misunderstood) instead. 🙏
Click to expand...
Between the two I do prefer Damage Nullification as well, for the same reason, for the record.
It also lines up with Power Nullification.
 
Feel free to ping them and to mention the new information in conjunction if you wish. 🙏
 
I'm mostly against the name change due to how it can be confused with Power Nullification or anything similar. But if i get outvoted, then so be it

The other changes i'm fine with
 
Well, I am not adamant about the name change. Let's see what other people here think. 🙏
 
I’m still disagreeing with changing the name. It works as it is and changing it to damage nullification will cause a lot of confusion down the line.
 
I'm pretty much in the same camp as Planck, disagree with the name change but if it comes down to it I wouldn't really care if the name is chosen to be changed.
 
Okay. I still think that "Damage Nullification" seems to make better sense in this context, but if there is no staff consensus for this, we might have to use a compromise solution of keeping the "Invulnerability" title, but applying the other suggested changes here. 🙏
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. I still think that "Damage Nullification" seems to make better sense in this context, but if there is no staff consensus for this, we might have to use a compromise solution of keeping the "Invulnerability" title, but applying the other suggested changes here. 🙏
Click to expand...
That's exactly how I feel. I might start the page with "Invulnerability, or Damage Negation, is the power to be immune to conventional harm" just to acknowledge the concept though unless people oppose that. The name will still be Invulnerability but it does at least quickly address the fact that it's not super descriptive.
 
That seems reasonable to me, although isn't "Damage Nullification" a better wording than "Damage Negation"? 🙏
 
Armorchompy said:
That's exactly how I feel. I might start the page with "Invulnerability, or Damage Negation, is the power to be immune to conventional harm" just to acknowledge the concept though unless people oppose that. The name will still be Invulnerability but it does at least quickly address the fact that it's not super descriptive.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think that's a fair compromise here.

Negation or nullification, I'll let you guys decide
 
Armorchompy said:
That's exactly how I feel. I might start the page with "Invulnerability, or Damage Negation, is the power to be immune to conventional harm" just to acknowledge the concept though unless people oppose that. The name will still be Invulnerability but it does at least quickly address the fact that it's not super descriptive.
Click to expand...
I think put this into the Summary of the ability is oke, no need for us to fighting over the name change
 
I prefer Negation because it's easier to tell apart from Power Nullification, which this is kind of similar to, so I'd rather avoid the confusion. But again I'm just fine with keeping Invulnerability as the page name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Armorchompy
  • Locked
Small Tweaks to Invulnerability
2
Replies
77
Views
9K
Armorchompy
Armorchompy
Infinite9Luck
Issue with the Durability Negation page
Replies
4
Views
1K
Infinite9Luck
Infinite9Luck
Arkenis
Verse Specific Powers and Abilities Rules
Replies
28
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Follow_Doctor_Freeman
Reflections on the Attack Reflection ability page
Replies
6
Views
940
Follow_Doctor_Freeman
Follow_Doctor_Freeman
Tllmbrg
  • Locked
Attack Reflection Alternation
2
Replies
60
Views
6K
Tllmbrg
Tllmbrg
Back
Top