A New Important Term: Anti-Feats

[Celestial_Pegasus]

I agree this is redundant

 

[LordXcano]

So you're saying an anti feat is a feat that goes against other feats/showings? That ultimately goes back to inconsistency and outlier.

Well, I disagree with OP. In that we shouldn't have a page for it, maybe just like a definition or tab on a page that already exists (likely the inconsistency page) as "anti-feat" is entirely dependent on the situation.

I feel it needs a separate tab because the point of an "anti-feat" isn't to be an inconsistency, but rather to disprove that a higher-end is consistent and/or show the lower-end is more consistent.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I still feel that what you are calling an anti-feat is not an anti-feat, just a redundant and pseudo-legitimal way of describing low-ends.

 

[Ryukama]

I feel it needs a separate tab because the point of an "anti-feat" isn't to be an inconsistency, but rather to disprove that a higher-end is consistent and/or show the lower-end is more consistent.

Then why did you use the term "anti-feat" to describe ridiculous low ends like Thor not being able to beat 5 sharks and the inability to blitz a human?

 

[LordXcano]

@Matt

Yeah, you're right. But from what I've seen (see all the links above) anti-feat tends to be used more and plus we don't really have a page for the word "low-end" either, just "inconsistency" which doesn't fit the definition of either.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Then we can expand the "Feats" page, to include Low-Ends and High-Ends.

Simple.

 

[LordXcano]

So long as it includes "anti-feat" as a synonym for low-end ;3

 

[Sera_EX]

So you admit it... >.>

Anyway, this looks like a good plan.

 

[Ryukama]

@Xcano Well as I've said I still prefer calling an outlier an outlier rather than regular showings "anti-feats."

And again, if an anti-feat is not an outlier rather a consistent low end like you say, then I do not get why you'd called those huge low ends of Thor "anti-feats."

Unless you consider weaker than a group of sharks, less than Subsonic Thor to be consistent. Or at least considerably more consistent than showings higher than that.

I'm sorry. I'm just trying to see if I understand entirely where you are coming from with the term "anti-feat" and how you apply it.

 

[LordXcano]

With Thor I labelled them "anti-feats" because, if later on, I gained far more of them than I did speed feats I would use them to downgrade Thor.

And, even if I didnt, if someone were to try and upgrade him to say, Infinite speed, then I could pull out:

"Well he got blitzed by the merely FTE Cobra here and wasn't able to beat sharks here"

 

[Ryukama]

Well if Thor being weaker than normal animals, at least at the time, wasn't consistent, then why would you refer to them as a term you say is meant to show consistency? I would never find a feat and call it consistent just in case I found out that it was consistent, as opposed to finding out whether or not it truly is before lableing it a such.

And I think it's more of a common sense thing that Thor isn't weaker than a group of sharks, but whatever.

And why would you argue against a high end outlier by using low end outliers? It's like saying "Kirby isn't Universe level cause he got harmed by an umbrella" or "Goku isn't Low 2-C because he got killed by a laser."

Why not use more consistent and reasonable "anti-feats" than the lowest showings imaginable?

I'm sorry but more and more it seems that anti-feats are relatively the same as low end outliers. Or that you believe that such ridiculous low ends actually are consistent and legitamate.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Using Low-End Outliers to counter High-End Outliers is a pointless, endless game with comicbooks.

 

[LordXcano]

@Ryu

I said above to basically just have it as a synonym for low-end after mulling it over.

My point with Thor was less to say that he IS Subsonic+Wall level and more "Here is a baseline establishing he is not that fast"

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

But showcasing a Subsonic Feat doesn't disprove the FTL feat. They are just separate occasions.

 

[Ryukama]

@Xcano Well if you don't believe Thor to be Subsonic and Wall, then those showings wouldn't be anti-feats by the way you're saying them.

As anti-feats are meant to be consistent showings of a character that prove he's at a lower level. At least that's how it seems from what you're saying about the way you're using them.

If anti-feat is just synonymous with low-end or outlier, then that kind of proves Matt and I's point.

And again using an outlier to disprove an outlier isn't very reasonable. It's much better to go for more reasonable limits to one's power than make yourself look like a downplayer.

 

[LordXcano]

"If anti-feat is just synonymous with low-end or outlier, then that kind of proves Matt and I's point."

That's what I've said like 2 or 3 times now.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Okay, so you admit your point with Thor is invalid.

 

[LordXcano]

I was never making a point with Thor in the first place just giving an example of my thoughts. You could swap "Thor" with "Bob" and it'd be the same thing.

 

[Ryukama]

Well you've said multiple times as well that anti-feats are not inconsistencies. But now it seems you agree that the term can describe an outlier and have applied it as such in the past.

But in either way if you feel I misunderstood you then I apologize.

Regardless, using inconsistent low ends to argue against inconsistent high ends is not reasonable at all in my personal opinion. They're both illegitamate things to rate someone's abilities on.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

One wrong does not make another wrong right.

 

[LordXcano]

"But if you feel I misunderstood you then I apologize."

I feel the problem was I felt the language used for low-ends felt too handwavy and dissmissive of them, so I had to argue for the term "anti-feat" until anti-feat and low-end became synonymous. But by that point I had already said too many things and it just became a mess of contradictions.

tl;dr I didn't think things through sorry

"using a inconsistent low ends to argue against inconsistent high ends is not reasonable at all in my opinion."

I kept meaning to include, but didn't because I was worried about tacking on yet another thing to "anti-feat" and risk contradicting myself again:

"X isn't Massively Hypersonic, here they get tagged by an arrow and here's one where they get hit by a bullet. However here are several feats showing them as Supersonic+."

With the purpose of the "bullet" and "arrow" feats being to show that Supersonic+ is already a high-end for the character, not to argue that they are literally Subsonic.

EDIT: Everything after "sorry" is just an explanation on my reasoning of using low-end outliers, not an explanation as to yet another thing for "anti-feat" or any of that, please don't think it relates to the discussion

 

[Ryukama]

@Xcano It's alright. I understand now and no worries.

It's just again I still don't see using low end feats you don't believe in is good for arguing. If someone accuses you of downplaying if you don't accept high ends, then yeah you can mention low ends to show you discard outliers from both sides.

Though I don't think a low end immediately debunks a high end, if both are rather unreasonable. But that's just me, and I don't think this matter in particular matters much to the topic of this thread any more.

 

[Antvasima]

Matt's definition makes sense to me. Looking at our other pages for outliers / inconsistency / PIS, it'd likely be for the best to clean them all up (the outlier and inconsistency page seem to be copied from the OBD), along with making an anti-feat page, so our definitions are all consistent with one another and we can reference the other terms for comparisons.

I agree with Promestein's solution. It seems most appropriate to simply expand the description for low-end feats in the Outlier page, according to Reppuzan's initial suggestion, combined with making a separate Anti-Feats page, according to Matthew's suggestion.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

I agree with Prom's idea.

 

[Austrian-Man-Meat]

After reading this thread here's my thoughts & views about it.

So this is how an anti-feat works (based on my understanding). You have five feats, with four of them being of significantly higher value than the last one; therefore that feat is classed as "anti-feat". In all honesty, I don't see the point of using that term when "outlier" covers the whole nine yards.

But if you want a reminder in the outlier page that you can have values which are way too high; values which are way too low. Even then I'm hesitant on that because the very meaning of outlier confirms there can be both values too high or too low.

In conclusion, I say just have the term outlier present; have the page explain what an outlier is and leave it at that. No need to use unnecessary sub-terms in the page.

 

[Sera_EX]

I like AMM's idea.

 

[Antvasima]

That may be a more simple solution, yes.

 

[EvilMegaCookie]

Don't really see the need for a new page when Outlier covers both instances already if I am not mistaken.

 

[Moathon]

Here's a good anti-feat:

Kars being faster than light yet isn't even a bullet timer and could be fought or even outran against regular humans, like ceasar or joseph.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Ceasar and Jonathan are FTL in Combat / Reactions. The later has a FTL feat.

 

[Austrian-Man-Meat]

Here's a good anti-feat:
Kars being faster than light yet isn't even a bullet timer and could be fought or even outran against regular humans, like Ceasar or Jonathan.

I know I know, this is probably a user trying to demonstrate to us what an anti-feat is (despite us already knowing what the concept is), but nonetheless, I cannot stand for misinformation about one of my favourite verses; therefore shall correct you, as pitiful as that sounds.

"Kars isn't even a bullet timer"

You are correct, never was there a panel where he demonstrated this.

"even outran against regular humans, like Ceasar or Jonathon."

I don't remember running speed being impressive in Part 2 nor would that even matter; it's not Jonathan, it's Joseph in the scene.

 

[LordXcano]

@AMM

Off-topic, but Joseph could keep up with Kars while running, right? Kars, being far superior to a vampire should definitely be able to replicate this thing casually.

 

[Antvasima]

Try to stay on topic please.

 

[Austrian-Man-Meat]

Try to stay on topic please.

Apologies.

On another note, I think we've reached a conclusion here.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose so. Although I am uncertain if the Outlier page text should be somewhat expanded upon?