- 8,675
- 5,560
It doesn't matter whether names are Type 1 or Type 2, it's just for the sake of the argument.
-
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.
Conceptual Manipulation Clarifications/Revisions
- Thread starter Dr._whiteee
- Start date
- Status
- 6,135
- 4,213
I know..I was just trying to express that relation between concept and object should be more important criteria than anything else.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,209
- 14,556
At this we point we just nuke all and replace with Abstract Manipulation like @QuasiYuri suggested lol
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,209
- 14,556
well it is just a joke, but if people fear of creating one or two more abilities, we all just merge most of them into a single thing
- 6,605
- 4,155
Ideas and concepts are the exact same thing tho. The point is that people want to make too many useless distinctions.
- 8,675
- 5,560
All we need are two types and all we need to do is specify on whatever given character's page.
- 167,759
- 76,385
@DontTalkDT @AKM sama
We would appreciate some help with trying to get this revision properly evaluated so we get it right.
We would appreciate some help with trying to get this revision properly evaluated so we get it right.
- 10,887
- 12,301
An idea in common sense is an aspect of the mind. Not every idea (and much less any abstraction) should be concept manipulation. That would be diluting the ability in having no consistent effects and nature. That would be vast overgeneralization.
Yeah, automatically slapping 'universal scale' on stuff is dumb. However, that was not the point of my concerns. My concern lies in that we are throwing completly different things, with different natures and different effects into the same bucket to avoid thinking about the subject.
A name in general should not be a concept at all. It's just a word.
Names as the special things Ichibe manipulates have more ground, but IMO lack proof of changing properties themself instead of just switching them out.
I mean, plot manipulation can do that too, but is plot manipulation by default also concept manipulation? I don't think so. It transforms things by changing something abstract (plot), but it doesn't influence what we would call concepts, exactly as it doesn't change fundamental principles.
Anyway, another suggestion which is really the lowest common denominator: We remove the universal range thing, but aside from that keep Type 1 and 2 just as concept manipulation in stricter sense.
In addition to that we create an "other" type, like I did for the Accelerated Development page to catch exceptions. That is then the type for stuff that can't be properly classified by the other types and, since it has no requirements, is the 'think for yourself'-type which does absolutely nothing without explanations on the profile (and can for that matter potentially be resisted by resistance against other abilities if the feats imply such).
Last edited:
- 8,675
- 5,560
Well yeah, obviously, I was never saying that, I was talking in the sense of Ichibe's ability.
Plot manipulation is completely different.
When said ideas are depicted as abstractions, and the manipulation of them in any way affects reality, it should be concept manipuation. What else would it be? Ichibe's ability alters these abstractions and in doing so affects reality.
- 10,887
- 12,301
How is it different? Plot is abstract and manipulating it affects reality. By your definition, any manipulation of something abstract that affects reality is supposed to be concept manipulation, so this would logically be as well.
It should be a separate thing. Ideally an ability for changing properties or alternatively a different type of concept manip. Or, if we don't do that, then it would be the sum of the demonstrated effects (i.e. taking away powers is powernull, reducing stats stat reduction etc.).
Anyway, what do you think of my suggestion regarding the "other"-section?
- 8,675
- 5,560
Plot Manipulation is a specific ability, not a different and general ability being saddled with this or grouped in. If an ability inflicts Power Nullification or Statistics Reduction through conceptual means, as Ichibe's does, then it should still be counted as Conceptual Manipulation.
I think the other section is way too vague to be of any use.
I think the other section is way too vague to be of any use.
- 6,135
- 4,213
This is understandable as far as alteration or replacement of concepts is concerned. But what about Creation and Destruction??
Also from your proposal of "Essence Manipulation" I interpreted something.
Concept and its Manipulation may not necessitate them be of similar nature.
Concepts can have different types sure. But 1)altering properties of concepts, 2)Creation and Destruction of Concepts is Concept Manipulation. While altering /creating /destroying the properties of interaction between concept and its object can end up as Essence Manipulation.
For example an Concept can be Type 1 or 2 etc, but user manipulating it can end up with Essence Manipulation instead of Concept Manipulation.
- 10,887
- 12,301
Problem is, your suggested definition doesn't make it a different thing at all. You can't define concept manipulation as something which plot manipulation also fulfils per default and then say it is a different ability anyway. If you do not adjust your proposed definition in a fashion that it actually doesn't meet the standards for being concept manipulation it makes no sense to say it isn't.
Anything abstract that influences reality is just not specific enough. Let me remind you that we for instance grant High-Godly Regeneration for surviving the deletion of one's concept. With a definition that allows anything abstract that affects reality to meet that standard, massive inflation in that respect is to be expected. Same for the inverse of overcoming regeneration levels via the ability.
Yet your proposal is to make all types exactly that vague. You don't want the sections to be specific, you don't want a section to put vague stuff. I just can't see what appeal you find in that proposal.
Considering the context, I don't understand what you mean with the question. Which definition of concept do you mean there?
I'm not sure I follow.
Is what you mean to say that while creating, destroying or changing a concept itself is concept manipulation, one could say that changing the properties of an object (i.e. performing Essence Manipulation) is fundamentally the same as changing which concepts the object "participates" in?
Last edited:
- 8,675
- 5,560
I want character pages to be specific. That's always better than needlessly adding more and more onto one page, giving more and more confusing information that users have to sort through.
We have to apply such big abiities through the analysis of things on a case-by-case basis. If it's not appropriate in a character's case, it's not appropriate in that character's case.
- 6,135
- 4,213
Honestly I never considered that factor of different definition of concept, not that I'd be able to properly visualise them.
Lets go with general definition. Concept of time/space, laws , emotions, stars, or concept of existence of some specific species or some individual in said species....etc.
Quite the opposite actually, I was entertaining your proposal that both are different kinds of manipulations.
- 10,887
- 12,301
Hmmmm... I have to be honest here. I'm completely lost on what you are trying to say. I'm very sorry about that.
Your first question was "But what about Creation and Destruction?"
Have you spotted a problem or unclearness in what we were debating when it comes to creation/destruction of concepts? If so, can you explain in more detail what it is?
Isn't an "others" section perfect for that purpose?
We can put something like this:
If that isn't a strong prompt towards making the character page specific I don't know what is.
It would mean that either the concept manipulation is that specific thing we define in Type 1 and 2 or one has to put detailed explanations to make the ability worth anything. That should encourage people to put in the effort.
- 8,675
- 5,560
But the thing is, what we've been talking about - Ichibe's names - doesn't not meet the standards of abstractions, it just is manipulated differently. It's not a third type, it's just one of those types altered in a different way from what you want to be the base. The abstraction isn't different, the ability is, and as it is the types that currently exist define types of abstractions, not how they're manipulated - and as I said before, an abstraction could be a Type 1 concept and still be manipulated in such a way.
Last edited:
- 3,714
- 2,718
To be honest I've always found Concept Manipulation to be a very confusing ability. For some verses it's applied easily to things that don't effect reality on a universal scale and for others it absolutely needs to to qualify which seems pretty inconsistent.
I always thought Concept Manipulation was manipulating--whether that's destroying, creating, altering, inverting, etc.--the abstract "idea" of any "thing". Like a minor use would be changing the properties of things like air and water to become completely different such as solid and unmoving, or making space physical and walkable and all of this is achieved through direct alterations or removals of what governs how they function or work, because simply freezing or having manipulation of these could also grant such effects, though you can absolutely have conceptual power over a particular element or thing as well, which is where the higher applications come in for those specific abilities.
Often times in fiction there are cases where a being who embodies a concept and is responsible for it's existence can be killed and the concept lives on, but in other series it will die with it's progenitor, which is how I imagine we had the different Types come up to better classify these examples.
These other abilities that can crossover with Concept Manipulation only add to the frustration and confusion. The other proposed abilities are just a consequence of having such a vague and broad ability listed, as a "Concept" can be applied in many different ways. However, we do have Mind Manipulation, Possession, Willpower Manipulation, Empathic Manipulation, and Corruption listed separately despite the VERY common overlaps in fiction and despite everything being a subset of Mind Manipulation and that's because they all warrant their own profiles as some characters only specialize in a specific subset of Mind Manipulation.
For these new abilities to be properly implemented perhaps we should focus on finding very specific examples that would better fit these proposed abilities instead of the more general Concept Manipulation, and if we can't then perhaps it's not a good idea.
I always thought Concept Manipulation was manipulating--whether that's destroying, creating, altering, inverting, etc.--the abstract "idea" of any "thing". Like a minor use would be changing the properties of things like air and water to become completely different such as solid and unmoving, or making space physical and walkable and all of this is achieved through direct alterations or removals of what governs how they function or work, because simply freezing or having manipulation of these could also grant such effects, though you can absolutely have conceptual power over a particular element or thing as well, which is where the higher applications come in for those specific abilities.
Often times in fiction there are cases where a being who embodies a concept and is responsible for it's existence can be killed and the concept lives on, but in other series it will die with it's progenitor, which is how I imagine we had the different Types come up to better classify these examples.
These other abilities that can crossover with Concept Manipulation only add to the frustration and confusion. The other proposed abilities are just a consequence of having such a vague and broad ability listed, as a "Concept" can be applied in many different ways. However, we do have Mind Manipulation, Possession, Willpower Manipulation, Empathic Manipulation, and Corruption listed separately despite the VERY common overlaps in fiction and despite everything being a subset of Mind Manipulation and that's because they all warrant their own profiles as some characters only specialize in a specific subset of Mind Manipulation.
For these new abilities to be properly implemented perhaps we should focus on finding very specific examples that would better fit these proposed abilities instead of the more general Concept Manipulation, and if we can't then perhaps it's not a good idea.
- 10,887
- 12,301
It might be some sort of abstraction, but I don't see how it is a type 1 or 2 concept.
The current definition is that a type 1 concept is like the "circleness" in which all circles participate (i.e. the fundamental source of a property) and one of the universe's fundamental principles that govern reality.
Maybe I'm forgetting what Bleach said in that regard, I'm not an expert in the verse, but from what I recall names were never said to amount to that. It was just that one could manipulate names to change the properties of things to some extend. In fact, didn't Ichibei decide the names of some things after they were created?
In another verse similar transformation could be achieved through manipulation of a fundamental energy field or something. Since the effect is the same I don't see why we would treat doing it via names different, just because a name is something abstract.
Anyways, ultimately this shouldn't be about Ichibei's case in particular. The debate might be useful as an example, but I hope we can agree that we shouldn't lay out our standards for Bleach. What it qualifies for can in principle be debated later.
What's important is which definition for concept we ultimately use. As I see it, and as the page defines it to this point, a type 1 concept is an abstract thing which is the source of a properties existence and nature. Something can only have the property a concept represents by 'participating' in it. Without doing so having the property should be impossible. By that nature it governs reality.
It is not just an abstract thing which's manipulation can have some sort of effect on reality. It's specifically an abstract source of properties, by current definition.
Personally, I don't think we should deviate from that for type 1 & 2.
- 8,675
- 5,560
The point isn't that Ichibe's ability specifically is Type 1, but that an ability could exist that manipulates concepts and properties on a specific scale. This is what I said earlier - I said, for the sake of argument. You're misunderstanding the point that I'm making, which is that switching out a property of a Type 1 concept is still Type 1 concept manipulation, even if the concept itself is not fundamentally and wholly redefined. Same with type 2.
- 10,887
- 12,301
Provided that concept in question is the source of a property in itself then sure.
So that we're clear: We agree that changing an abstraction in a fashion that affects reality is not Type 1 or 2, unless said abstraction has demonstrated being the fundamental source of a property?
- 8,675
- 5,560
Yeah sure, I guess.
- 10,887
- 12,301
Alright... so where do we stand then?
The universal requirement gets removed, but otherwise Type 1 & 2 stays the same. I think everyone agrees with that much.
So what about Type 3? "Others" is probably the easiest compromise (and would technically need no revisions to existing profiles). We also had other options on the table, though. I'm just not sure if any option has a great amount of agreement at this point.
The universal requirement gets removed, but otherwise Type 1 & 2 stays the same. I think everyone agrees with that much.
So what about Type 3? "Others" is probably the easiest compromise (and would technically need no revisions to existing profiles). We also had other options on the table, though. I'm just not sure if any option has a great amount of agreement at this point.
- 8,675
- 5,560
I don't like the "Others" option, because Type 1 and Type 2 can still involve manipulating properties as such, and doing as such may be their only feat.
- 10,887
- 12,301
It would make it easier to classify cases where it is not very clear whether they are Type 1 or 2 concept manip, though. Not all fiction is very clear on the matter. Concepts (or other abstractions) frequently are manipulated without really explaining what their nature is in detail.
What would your alternative suggestion regarding Type 3 be?
What would your alternative suggestion regarding Type 3 be?
- 8,675
- 5,560
I guess you could just go with some sort of generic Type 3...?
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,209
- 14,556
I still think about keeping type 3 for some kind of safe zone. For example, a character name Toujo Basara, he is said to have a conceptual attack, but nothing more than that; and Siren from Azur Lane, they said that they can control the very fundamental, concept part of the pocket dimension they create, but nothing more than that, and we can't just assume they automatically govern reality universally. Or Tobio from Highschool DxD, he can destroy the concept of magic.
- 8,675
- 5,560
That's what I meant.
- 10,887
- 12,301
Wouldn't that be the Others type?
If not can I get a specific suggestion for the text of Type 3 that would follow this suggestion, so that I can understand it in more detail?
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,209
- 14,556
1. What do you mean by other type
2. Anyway, yeah, i think we should make type 3 more specific.....
- 10,887
- 12,301
I mean what I suggested further above:
I.e. a type to catch all cases of concept manipulation which aren't clear or don't meet one of the requirements for Type 1 or 2.
- 8,675
- 5,560
I prefer 'Type 3' to 'Others'. Simply a matter of names there.
Vietthai96
He/Him- 10,209
- 14,556
Anyway i fine with either name because it is mostly just name, but i do prefer keep the name "Type 3" rather than using "Other".
Also i am thinking about rename Type 3 from Lesser Realist Concept to Local, Personal Concept. When we revise conceptual, we change type 1 and 2 to universal independant and universal dependant, the two name itself is really direct and easy to understand. But type 3 we still keeping the name Lesser Realist Concept which to many peoples, hard to grasp the meaning at first sight
We should also fix some information on Regeneration page, High Godly section or people will just goes wild with High Godly when they saw someone regen from conceptual destruction. Anyway i'm in full agreement with description, as resist the effect of a local type can be resist by other type of resistance
Hey Ant what is your opinion
- 8,675
- 5,560
I like that idea, personally. Local personal concept in such cases as where the individual concept is abstract and governs the individual. I think of Fate/shit with everyone's own concepts of x
- Status
