can we please add an NLF note regarding the durability negation page

[Agnaa]

It's been accepted, we just need someone to update the pages.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Is somebody here willing and able to properly do so then please?

 

[DontTalkDT]

So, I already see weird takeaways like this and this pop up sometimes, often citing back to this thread. I'm not quite sure where those conclusions come from, but since they usually are linked back here, I think it might be worth to add clarifying wording on that.

 

[Agnaa]

Those comments sound weird, but with some broader context, they go back into being reasonable.

For the first one, the poster later acknowledged that this just applies to undimensioned things needing range rather than potency, now, changing how resistance layers are discussed for higher-tier characters.

For the second one, the conversation started with talk of how abstract things like concept and information are no longer treated as immensely more unassailable due to the space they govern.

Both of those are just correct, even if they're accompanied by some dodgy phrasings.

It seems like enough people are getting it to correct others, without us needing to elaborate further on the page.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Not sure. I would need to dig for it, but I have also seen the take "there's no smurf hax anymore" flying around.
And the second one people straight up had the opinion that the current hax page is wrong, which is a problem, as IIRC we didn't intend to change the wording on the hax page at all.

I guess one part might be that people only now realize the potency and range split that technically exists since 2023.

One specific note I think is worth adding, given the latest sentiment, is that abilities like info manip or reality warping can be smurf if they are attached to a power system that makes them focusable/quantitative. In that aspect I think this comment of yours was a little overgeneralized.

 

[Agnaa]

Not sure. I would need to dig for it, but I have also seen the take "there's no smurf hax anymore" flying around.
And the second one people straight up had the opinion that the current hax page is wrong, which is a problem, as IIRC we didn't intend to change the wording on the hax page at all.

I mean, now that they point it out, that wording is a little bit off. I'd change it to something like:

The main advantage of an ability being considered "smurf" in power / potency is that it is assumed to be capable of overpowering all resistances that have not shown to be even close to the same level of power. This in practice means that a three dimensional character with a Low Complex Multiveral smurf ability should be capable of overpowering the resistance of a three dimensional character who has only resisted that ability operating on a Universal+ scale.

The changes are adding the word "smurf" after "Low Complex Multiversal", to clarify that it doesn't apply to all abilities, only ones that have been accepted as smurf. And that it doesn't refer to "baseline" resistance, since smurf abilities don't stop trumping resistances once they reach an arbitrary number of layers.

One specific note I think is worth adding, given the latest sentiment, is that abilities like info manip or reality warping can be smurf if they are attached to a power system that makes them focusable/quantitative. In that aspect I think this comment of yours was a little overgeneralized.

I don't think I agree. I think that'd just make it easier for the series to bypass resistances in general, but I don't think it'd be to a smurf-y extent.

Like, if a series says that "My information is locked behind a Level 5 Gate. Since your Access is only Level 4, you don't have the authority to alter me!" that is absolutely making it quantitative, and would provide multiple layers of resistance, but I don't think that means we should bring the tier of any structure effected into the equation.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I mean, now that they point it out, that wording is a little bit off. I'd change it to something like:

The changes are adding the word "smurf" after "Low Complex Multiversal", to clarify that it doesn't apply to all abilities, only ones that have been accepted as smurf. And that it doesn't refer to "baseline" resistance, since smurf abilities don't stop trumping resistances once they reach an arbitrary number of layers.

That seems fine.

I don't think I agree. I think that'd just make it easier for the series to bypass resistances in general, but I don't think it'd be to a smurf-y extent.

Like, if a series says that "My information is locked behind a Level 5 Gate. Since your Access is only Level 4, you don't have the authority to alter me!" that is absolutely making it quantitative, and would provide multiple layers of resistance, but I don't think that means we should bring the tier of any structure effected into the equation.

Don't have an example for a smurf character, but I do have an example to illustrate what I mean power system wise. Ether in Kawakami-verse.
It's solidly established as Information Type 2 and can do law manipulation and reality warping. However, it's also treated as a "substance", in that manipulating more of it is taken as needing greater control power, and treated like mana, in that putting more into spells makes them stronger.
So, an Ether manipulator draining all Ether from some infinite 8D space into an Ether bolt would make it stronger, just like how a water manipulator focusing an 8D ocean into a water bullet would make their projectile stronger.
Likewise, if you wanted to resist an Ether manipulator from rewriting the information of your body into that of salt, you would contend with their ability to manipulate Ether. So since manipulating a greater area of Ether is taken is proving higher Ether control ability, manipulating an infinite 8D amount of is also infinitely higher control ability.

To return from the example to a more general level: If the potency of hax and quantitative showings are linked by your power system, then infinitely higher quantitative showings result in infinitely higher potency of hax. And that's exactly what smurf hax is.
In the end, it behaves pretty much exactly as existence erasure, which you already listed on the powers for which size can matter.

 

[Agnaa]

As per my earlier comment elsewhere

Welp, I'm going through mental health issues involving loss of interest in most things, including battleboarding.

Based on historical experiences, I'll probably get back into the swing of things in 1-9 months, but until then I won't be engaging in anything that requires more than the absolute minimum of effort, or is of the utmost criticality.

I don't have an adequate amount of energy to dedicate to a topic like this.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Understandable. Have a nice break.

 

[Robo432343]

bump

 

[Mbpoops]

This should definetly be a ranged based ability

Like characters who are 3D can only duraneg characters wirh 3D durability (so up to H3-A) unless they have extradimensional or higherD range. We unironically have people arguing beatrice from rezero who has 10-B ap can duraneg H1B characters. This is a problem

 

[Robo432343]

This should definetly be a ranged based ability

Like characters who are 3D can only duraneg characters wirh 3D durability (so up to H3-A) unless they have extradimensional or higherD range. We unironically have people arguing beatrice from rezero who has 10-B ap can duraneg H1B characters. This is a problem

thats a problem with vs threads, not site page

 

[Mbpoops]

thats a problem with vs threads, not site page

Its a site page problem because it says regardless of durability

 

[Robo432343]

uh i think this is accepted but apparently this was only accepted for 1-A characters or something?? according to some people

 

[KirbyFan03]

Hello Reinhard my old friend...

 

[Robo432343]

@Mbpoops the dura neg wank is getting out of control

 

[Mbpoops]

@Mbpoops the dura neg wank is getting out of control

I stopped like half a day ago THIS IS NOT ON ME ATP

 

[Robo432343]

I stopped like half a day ago THIS IS NOT ON ME ATP

YOU STARTED THIS

 

[Mbpoops]

YOU STARTED THIS

Duraneg discussion rule bro

 

[Robo432343]

Note: Durability Negation should not automatically be treated to work against the target regardless of the difference in power. While durability-negating abilities does bypass the durability of the target, they are still limited by their demonstrated scope, mechanics, and the nature of the target. As such, it is generally a No Limits Fallacy to assume that an ability which ignores durability can affect opponents vastly beyond what it has demonstrated.

 

[Robo432343]

Bump

 

[Robo432343]

 

[Antvasima]

What has been accepted here and what do we currently need to do here?

 

[Robo432343]

What has been accepted here and what do we currently need to do here?

I'm pretty sure we all agree that an NLF note needs to be included in our durability negation page but i don't know if everyone is okay with this specific description:

Note: Durability Negation should not automatically be treated to work against the target regardless of the difference in power. While durability-negating abilities does bypass the durability of the target, they are still limited by their demonstrated scope, mechanics, and the nature of the target. As such, it is generally a No Limits Fallacy to assume that an ability which ignores durability can affect opponents vastly beyond what it has demonstrated.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the information.

That text seems fine to me at least.

Which other staff members have helped out here, so I can ping them?

 

[Robo432343]

Thank you for the information.

That text seems fine to me at least.

Which other staff members have helped out here, so I can ping them?

@DontTalkDT @Flashlight237 @Agnaa @DarkDragonMedeus @Theglassman12

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Agnaa @Theglassman12 @Flashlight237

What do you all think about this suggestion?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/can-w...-durability-negation-page.173197/post-7812776

 

[Flashlight237]

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Agnaa @Theglassman12 @Flashlight237

What do you all think about this suggestion?

https://vsbattles.com/threads/can-w...-durability-negation-page.173197/post-7812776

Finally, something I can actually contribute to! Yeah, I can 100% agree with this. I always had a squick about the logic behind durability negation. My first encounter with the problems with the lack of accountability for NLFs was back when Thunder McQueen was racking up Inconclusives because people thought his Stand had no limit to what it can kill off.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Think it was already agreed but having gotten around applying this year and a half old thread.

 

[Antvasima]

If this has already been accepted, is somebody willing and able to properly apply the note please?