• 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 AKM sama if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.

A New Type of Profile - Locations

Status
Not open for further replies.

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
If extreme advantages to one side are generated via a location, a balanced alternative should be discussed in the relevant versus thread. This can include bystanders that need to be rescued or are able to provide outside assistance, as well as poisons or diseases that are present in the area.
I believe this is a much more effective wording for the rule, and helps generally sum up how Locations should be used in many fields.
Would either participant be allowed to be assumed to potentially indirectly or directly threaten this person? And would we assume it does nothing in regards of this?
Probably not. If someone could win a battle without even attacking the actual opponent by instead just destabilizing the battlefield by killing whoever is stabilizing it. That isn't really a battle, plus it could be assumed that either character would be capable of such, which would result in an incon anyway.
 
16,424
2,922
Probably not. If someone could win a battle without even attacking the actual opponent by instead just destabilizing the battlefield by killing whoever is stabilizing it. That isn't really a battle, plus it could be assumed that either character would be capable of such, which would result in an incon anyway.
The problem becomes clear in cases where characters have simply range with moves too wide to expect the one that sustains the place to not be affected.
I think this sort of locations are best just being banned to avoid going into fanfiction territory.
 
3,257
201
What if bystanders make the battle fairer for example a super genius tactician mind controls a dozen bystanders to fight someone who otherwise out matches them or has a defensive ability they can't get around but a bystander does I would assume those have to be banned.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
It seems like we have reached a sufficient consensus to apply this now.
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
3,649
722
I feel like we should have a few examples made before people start to go crazy with location pages.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
I can upload the example profiles I gave in the OP if we wish. I will have to adjust them slightly though according to some of the changes that have been discussed.
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
3,649
722
Just curious, are they only for locations like buildings or cities, or can they be smaller/bigger than that?
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
Just curious, are they only for locations like buildings or cities, or can they be smaller/bigger than that?
they can be anything, size isn't a restriction. From a house to a multiverse, or even further either way if valid.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
Isn't it better to just link to the example pages from the relevant standard format page?
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
I'm unsure. The profiles will be uploaded at some point either way while they're done. Do you mean link the created profiles on the Standard Format page once it is uploaded?
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
That would be a good idea then. Do you mind if I upload them all soon then? standard format page too.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
I'm not sure if this is addressed yet, but can't alot of mundane and repetitive files be made if we consider this?

In terms of mundaneness, what exactly stops someone for making a Location file of someone's house, or a park, or a desert, and you can very well just bulk up the wiki by making irrelevant areas like "this park near my area" or "this street near my place" or "this landmark near me"

Another factor can very well be repeating locations, let's say someone makes a page for idk, Hawaii, then they make a page for every volcano, then they make a page for every locale and you get this file matroyshka doll

You may say "use your common sense" but we have very well in the past received extremely dumb files like this because HAHAMEMES and this just sounds something really exploitable, unless you're making rules against this
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
Impress makes a good point. We need some regulations to include in the standard format page.
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
3,649
722
Well maybe we could list some criteria for real world locations that have to be met.
For example:
Is it important/famous historically or geographically?
Does it have rare/unique geographical features?
Is it famous for being the biggest/smallest/most dangerous etc?
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
3,649
722
I have also made an attempt at creating a location profile. Although I'll leave it for now, until we've come to a more solid conclusion on the rules and whatnot.
 
Last edited:

AKM sama

Always Kinda Magnetic
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
9,227
8,568
In terms of mundaneness, what exactly stops someone for making a Location file of someone's house, or a park, or a desert, and you can very well just bulk up the wiki by making irrelevant areas like "this park near my area" or "this street near my place" or "this landmark near me"

Another factor can very well be repeating locations, let's say someone makes a page for idk, Hawaii, then they make a page for every volcano, then they make a page for every locale and you get this file matroyshka doll

You may say "use your common sense" but we have very well in the past received extremely dumb files like this because HAHAMEMES and this just sounds something really exploitable, unless you're making rules against this
I already brought this concern up above and I completely agree. Locations like Gotham, Avengers Towers, etc. are basically just that. Mundane, redundant, and will bloat the wiki. That is why I advised a strict quality control over this.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
Something else I've just thought of would be. How do we think the likes of Mario worlds could be handled, their design and themes would make them each definitely viable for profiles. But they repeat and change from game to game, and cannot be so easily composited as the Characters of the series are.

Would the likes of World 1 (New Super Mario Bros) warrant a separate profile to World 1 (Super Mario Bros)?
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
Something else I've just thought of would be. How do we think the likes of Mario worlds could be handled, their design and themes would make them each definitely viable for profiles. But they repeat and change from game to game, and cannot be so easily composited as the Characters of the series are.

Would the likes of World 1 (New Super Mario Bros) warrant a separate profile to World 1 (Super Mario Bros)?
I suppose that you would have to specify the location, but we obviously cannot spam every single Mario stage in every single game.

Maybe a generic "Mushroom Kingdom" would be enough? Meaning, create composite very iconic stages if you can, and discard the others.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
I suppose that you would have to specify the location, but we obviously cannot spam every single Mario stage in every single game.

Maybe a generic "Mushroom Kingdom" would be enough? Meaning, create composite very iconic stages if you can, and discard the others.
Creating a Composite Page for the Mushroom Kingdom would be a massive task and would have huge walls of text on the page if it were to note every single notable area throughout the series. There would also be inconsistencies inside the profile, since the Mushroom Kingdom, and pretty much everything in Mario changes from game to game.

I understand we cannot spam all of the Mario stages. But I personally don't believe that 1 composite Mushroom Kingdom would be a realistic or worthwhile task.
 
3,781
295
Okay i know i am not a mod by any mean and this will be the last time i talk in threads but what about locations that have defined Dimensions?
 

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Consultant
Sysop
4,950
2,703
Regarding the stuff about the presence of bystanders: A similar question came up regarding the SBA before. My opinion on that when it comes to the SBA is that bystanders are allowed. One of the reasons the central park was chosen as SBA location was that it contains some amount of what one would expect to find in most populated regions on Earth these days, like water, earth, plants, animals, electricity, metal etc.
Having a normal amount of things for people with manipulation powers to manipulate was part of the goals. As such it makes sense for mind controllers to have normal humans available as things to control. It's not just mind controllers either. There are stealth users or shapeshifters that are good at blending into a crowd or social influencing users that could rile up a mob. Or things that feed on human bio-mass or people that can turn humans into undead fighters, like zombies or vampires, etc.

However, it is obviously a problem for characters that don't kill innocents if those people are present. For low tier fights it's also bothersome that the police or military could enter the battle.
Instead of banning them, I would fix that with an addendum to the SBA stating that the character's morals regarding bystanders are off and that bystanders may not join the fight without one of the combatants making them do so.

Now for location profiles other than our real-life central park, this approach would need an extra rule to ban superhuman fighters, as those are just outside influence of other verses characters. For that, we can simply say that any sentient being that isn't (equivalent to) a real-life human or animal is assumed not to be present in the location.
 

AKM sama

Always Kinda Magnetic
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
9,227
8,568
Makes sense. Morals regarding bystanders being off also gets rid of the problem of taking people hostage, as that won't have any effect on the battle after this addition.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
I suppose that makes sense, but it seems tasteless to let traditionally virtuous characters like Superman tear through millions of bystanders. Oh well, I seem to be outvoted anyway.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
I actually disagree with turning bystander motivation off, this is genuinely approaching more and more into "SBA means Bloodlust" territory if we do that.

If opponents get unfair advantage, good, the major point of Pre-Indexed Vs. Debating in the first place, is character discussion. You discuss what the CHARACTER will do and how they will win, it's separate from conventional vs. debating where it's a scan hunt, that part is already done, and if the character is being hurt by the SBA we are indirectly killing what's even left to debate.

I already dislike immensely the SBA "Willing to kill" but this is too much, if the problem is "limited by bystanders", it's better to change the location, which is something the OP can VERY WELL do
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
3,649
722
I've always taken the "In character, but willing to kill" with the mentality that, if the character prefers to not kill, they'd exhaust all possible options first before going in for the kill.

Other than that, I also dislike heroes giving up their principles and just blindly attacking their opponent.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
And actually, genuinely, what is the difference between bloodlusted and SBA if this goes through, the hero doesn't care about EITHER the bystanders, OR the opponent surviving, why WOULDN'T he go max strength? Aside from a few rare examples where characters are just "playful" I don't see any other reason.

Why wouldn't Superman and Hulk just blow up the planet as the opening move? They have LITERALLY nothing to lose by standards imposed.

We made SBA "Uneven Bloodlust", amazing development. At that point it's MORE unfair to the select characters who have a fraction of their character left, like Frieza or someone, as they're now fighting an uncaring broken killing machine with no reason left to let them live
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
Impress largely makes sense to me. We should try to make the fights as fair as possible, and preferably reasonably in-character as well.
 

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Consultant
Sysop
4,950
2,703
And actually, genuinely, what is the difference between bloodlusted and SBA if this goes through, the hero doesn't care about EITHER the bystanders, OR the opponent surviving, why WOULDN'T he go max strength? Aside from a few rare examples where characters are just "playful" I don't see any other reason.

Why wouldn't Superman and Hulk just blow up the planet as the opening move? They have LITERALLY nothing to lose by standards imposed.

We made SBA "Uneven Bloodlust", amazing development. At that point it's MORE unfair to the select characters who have a fraction of their character left, like Frieza or someone, as they're now fighting an uncaring broken killing machine with no reason left to let them live
Until now bystanders were never factors in debates. Did you have the impression that our characters currently are all bloodlusted? I don't.

I generally don't think having morals AND characters present is realistic. In practice I am almost certain that it will result in one of three things in every match:
1. It isn't relevant for the matchup.
2. It is technically relevant, but gets ignored.
3. It would be relevant, so the location is changed because it would be a disadvantage to one of the characters.
Outside of some gimmicky matches, I can't imagine that anyone actually wants a hostage situation inside their duel. The cases where that is relevant and desirable are in the minority IMO and can be better managed by changing the assumptions for the threads where it is supposed to happen.

Is it the same as bloodlusted? No, it's not. Bloodlusted means the character wants to kill the opponent at any price and as hard and brutally as possible. A bloodlusted character will in most cases instantly launch the most powerful attack in their arsenal at the opponent. None of this applies to our SBA.
Our SBA conserves the character's fighting style and morals towards the opponent exist to a degree, just that they are willing to end the match by killing if they can't finish it otherwise.
Would Superman and Hulk just instantly bust the planet? Don't think so. It's still planet Earth. Their home planet and the home planet of humanity. The lack of relevant bystanders at the moment doesn't diminish that. Maybe they would if they find that they can't win otherwise, but personally, I'm ok with that.
Sure, I bet there are also other characters that wouldn't use any AoE techniques with bystanders around usually, but again, that's a trade-off I'm ok with. Our matches are supposed to be in-character, but they also are supposed to be a serious fight between two characters fighting at their best. A fight where a City level character needs to fight at Building level power to not hurt bystanders just doesn't reflect the character fighting properly.

That's my stance at least.
We could also try to make some compromise. Maybe some rule of large numbers. Like, individual bystanders are irrelevant, so that characters can fight properly, but when it comes to attacks that would wipe out the populations of large cities morals regarding the population in general apply or something. Don't know if that's a solution anyone likes 🤷‍♂️
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
Well, the main issue is that Superman would never use his full power in a manner that would blow opponents right through populated buildings, for example.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
Until now bystanders were never factors in debates.
Actually they were, we've considered characters thinking of collateral very often.
Did you have the impression that our characters currently are all bloodlusted? I don't.
...so subjectivity
I generally don't think having morals AND characters present is realistic. In practice I am almost certain that it will result in one of three things in every match:
1. It isn't relevant for the matchup.
Good, not a problem.
2. It is technically relevant, but gets ignored.
Unless people like seeing their characters lose, don't see why this would happen
3. It would be relevant, so the location is changed because it would be a disadvantage to one of the characters.
Central Park isn't the end-all be-all perfect location. There are better ones.
Outside of some gimmicky matches, I can't imagine that anyone actually wants a hostage situation inside their duel. The cases where that is relevant and desirable are in the minority IMO and can be better managed by changing the assumptions for the threads where it is supposed to happen.
You can change assumption of thread my scenario too... except it isn't leading to character breaking
Is it the same as bloodlusted? No, it's not. Bloodlusted means the character wants to kill the opponent at any price and as hard and brutally as possible. A bloodlusted character will in most cases instantly launch the most powerful attack in their arsenal at the opponent. None of this applies to our SBA.
Our SBA conserves the character's fighting style and morals towards the opponent exist to a degree, just that they are willing to end the match by killing if they can't finish it otherwise.
Arbitrary distinction
Would Superman and Hulk just instantly bust the planet? Don't think so. It's still planet Earth. Their home planet and the home planet of humanity. The lack of relevant bystanders at the moment doesn't diminish that. Maybe they would if they find that they can't win otherwise, but personally, I'm ok with that.
Arbitrary conclusion reached from unapparent logic, there is ZERO reason to think this way eith the solution you've proposed
Sure, I bet there are also other characters that wouldn't use any AoE techniques with bystanders around usually, but again, that's a trade-off I'm ok with. Our matches are supposed to be in-character, but they also are supposed to be a serious fight between two characters fighting at their best. A fight where a City level character needs to fight at Building level power to not hurt bystanders just doesn't reflect the character fighting properly.
...just change the location. End of story. Never have we once asked the OP to lock them in Central Park, and you know, maybe Central Park isn't such a good starting location afterall then, change it to one of those Chinese ghost cities where no one lives, or a forest somewhere or wherever else.

In general I feel the things you state as "trade-offs" aren't as agreeable as you may think, I feel it's poor representation of the character
 
215
23
Central Park is oddly specific and hardly neutral





But i agree with the overall sentiment. There are a few places in star trek that grants ppl reality warping powers.




Perhaps tier the locations as well (based on durability/sheer size). If it's a city then 7-B, if its an average building then 8-C, if its your neighbour's house then 9-A. After all your opponent might wanna bust the whole place
 

Promestein

Cicada Killer
VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
7,823
3,614
That's why we list the size and composition.

Bystander motivation is interesting. Just pick an area without them if it bothers you.
 

DontTalkDT

A Fossil at This Point
VS Battles
Consultant
Sysop
4,950
2,703
Well, the main issue is that Superman would never use his full power in a manner that would blow opponents right through populated buildings, for example.
I mean, if we turn off morals towards bystanders one could think of those as non-populated buildings. One could put it as all humans in the area having been replaced by philosophical zombies.

Honestly, I wouldn’t care so much if we were talking about location profiles alone. If you are making an effort to pick a location, it's on the thread to consider what population that location has (although anyone beyond basic humans and animals should still be banned for a match that gets added).

However, if we're talking SBA then choosing a massively crowded area like central park with morals towards bystanders turned on would be a mistake. The most important thing in choosing a standard location (along with it being well known) was to let as many characters as possible fight at their normal potential. If we have tons of characters pull their punches to not hurt the bystander 3 meters left from them, that isn't given. In that case, we should change the standard location, but that would be a massive revision as it affects virtually all vs-threads (and the central park was otherwise an excellent location to boot).
Not to mention that just moving to a depopulated area helps nobody, since the morals then don't come into play, even if technically there, and users of nearby humans have no humans to use.
For SBA just turning morals towards bystanders off entirely, or at least in Central Park and vicinity seems definitely like the best choice. Or just turn all nearby bystanders into philosophical zombies as I suggest at the end of this post.

Actually they were, we've considered characters thinking of collateral very often.
I've also seen tons of battles where that was entirely and completely ignored. In fact, as often as that was a factor I'm pretty sure it was much more often ignored, i.e. assumed to not be a factor, than it was taken into account.

Like, virtually every fight tier 7 and up would probably kill thousands of bystanders when fighting full force. I bet the majority of those fights never bring it up, even with good guys fighting.

Unless people like seeing their characters lose, don't see why this would happen
Yet it does happen all the time. I could probably dig up the 10 most recent hero vs villain fight threads and none would mention the hero trying to protect innocent bystanders from the consequences of their superpowered battle.

Actually, I just looked for the first fight of that type in the list which was this.

Almost everyone Marisa loves will probably die during that match, yet there is zero mention of that.

Or if you want a match with more replies take this one. There's talk about the monster throwing buildings around, yet no mention of the heroes trying to save people.

Or here people argue that the hero creates kilometer big explosions in a village without a second thought.

People just naturally don't think about bystanders, because we are having characters duel. We are trying to have fair 1-on-1 fights, which most people don't assume liabilities like bystanders to be involved in, unless a character actually tries to use them.

Central Park isn't the end-all be-all perfect location. There are better ones.
There being better ones is your opinion. In any case, there's nothing wrong with changing the location. Fact is, however, that Central Park is our standard location.

It becomes bothersome when the location is changed in the middle of the thread. And that is what probably happens when anyone stops ignoring the bystanders and tries doing morality arguments. The SBA was made because thread makers tend to not think stuff through that far.

As I said in my reply to Antvasima, for locations outside SBA I don't care too much. Who bothers to use those probably considered population too. We, quite frankly, wouldn't even need to specify what the assumption is, but could just let them specify which option they want. But for the SBA treatment of bystanders, this is a different story.

Point is, very few people actually intend to make matches that involve bystander morals in the middle of an extremely crowded area, so the assumption upon no further specification being that a battle involves bystander morals and is in the middle of an extremely crowded area is unwise.

You can change assumption of thread my scenario too... except it isn't leading to character breaking
The difference is how many people wish to make which. Default to character morals in a crowded area and you get way more threads that didn't intend to nerf the fighters that way, than you would get threads that wanted to include that element but accidentally didn't, if you don't default to it.

Arbitrary distinction
No, that's the difference between our definition of Bloodlust and our SBA mindset. That's literally just the comparison of the current state.

Saying the two states of mind are the same is objectively wrong.

Arbitrary conclusion reached from unapparent logic, there is ZERO reason to think this way eith the solution you've proposed
So you think Superman and the Hulk would instantly blow up Earth, if all humans they cared about would temporarily not be present? 'cause no morals towards random bystanders doesn't equate to no morals towards humanity in general. It's not like I suggested to retroactively make them evil.

...just change the location. End of story. Never have we once asked the OP to lock them in Central Park, and you know, maybe Central Park isn't such a good starting location afterall then, change it to one of those Chinese ghost cities where no one lives, or a forest somewhere or wherever else.

In general I feel the things you state as "trade-offs" aren't as agreeable as you may think, I feel it's poor representation of the character
Never have we once asked anyone to not put characters completely in-character either. So just do that in the 1% of matches where it's intended and leave the SBA as is. Spares you from all the work that comes with changing the standard location, too.

Not to mention changing the SBA location solves nothing. Forest? No electricity, no metal etc. Chinese Ghost City? Better, but still no humans for human users to actually use.

If we simply wanted a deserted location we could just say that no bystanders were present instead. That would be much easier. And the worst solution, since the in-character morals would still be irrelevant and there would be no humans to be used around.

Honestly, I'm somewhat surprised that you suggest that at all. If you think the character's morals are something that should absolutely show in the fight I would have thought you really want it to take place in a populated area so that the morals are actually relevant. Suggesting to move it to an abandoned place makes me think that maybe it's less that you like that aspect being relevant in matches and more that you don't want to adjust the state of mind a little to make it not relevant?

How about this suggestion then: Every human in New York City gets safely transported elsewhere and is replaced with a philosophical zombie version of itself, which can be mind controlled, have their mind read, be turned into undead and also otherwise interacts with all powers exactly like the original would. The characters keep their morals towards bystanders, but also get the knowledge that those people in New York City aren't the actual bystanders, but just unfeeling not truly sentient bags of flesh that happen to look like them.
That way they can be in character regarding bystanders, while the bystanders at the same time are no hindrance and there are people like things for human users to use.
One could do something like that for the other locations, too, if standard assumptions for those need to be formulated at all.
 
9,113
2,017
I assume I can make something like this for Oryx’s Castle from Realm of the Mad God? Or would that be too generic due to it being a normal castle outside of its inhabitants and its durability?
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
I've also seen tons of battles (...) Fact is, however, that Central Park is our standard location. It becomes bothersome when the location is changed in the middle of the thread. (..) the middle of an extremely crowded area is unwise.
You DO recognize the current crux of your argument is "people have been dumb in the past, so instead of countering that dumbness, we'll accommodate it", this is horrendous practice that only makes SBA more convoluted than solve anything.

Central Park being our standard location isn't a FACT, it's a CHOICE. We can change choices, and my opinion is right now rooted in the fact that the alternatives you're proposing to fix the moral issues are very convoluted, unapparent and inconsiderate, while your opinion to KEEP Central Park right now is only seemingly rooted in tradition and like... nothing else, your other points are really easily fixable.
No, that's the difference between our definition of Bloodlust and our SBA mindset. That's literally just the comparison of the current state.

Saying the two states of mind are the same is objectively wrong.
Said difference isn't relevant enough to be distinct.

Claiming
So you think Superman and the Hulk would instantly blow up Earth, if all humans they cared about would temporarily not be present? 'cause no morals towards random bystanders doesn't equate to no morals towards humanity in general. It's not like I suggested to retroactively make them evil.
Now there is a factor of "They're TEMPORARILY not present", wow DT I think by the time you're done adding countering standards you can make a separate page FOR the Standard Location.

If the planet is abandoned I do know supeheroes can and will blow it up, this is a consistent factor in comics, Marvel ones at the very least.
Chinese Ghost City? Better, but still no humans for human users to actually use.
What the hell is a "human user"? Hell if there is a Human User existent, that just massively defeats the entire point of bystander restriction, because then that is a VERY MAJOR vs. debating point you have to use.

Also remind me real quick, how many volcanoes are in New York, or snowcapped mountains, or deserts, or shinto shrines, or many other hyperspecific nitpicks I can make right about now relevant to a fraction of characters in fiction? Hell I know characters EXPLICITLY weakened by the factors in New York

Yeah now let's play this frivolous game real quick, everyone try to think of a place that has LITERALLY everything every character in fiction can possess. There isn't one? Then maybe that isn't as massive a knock against a standard location, is it?
If we simply wanted a deserted location we could just say that no bystanders were present instead. That would be much easier.
...do you know there are an abundance of characters the size of cities and more. Do we then presume that the Earth as a whole is uninhabited? Like I do want the exact logic here understood.

Hell doesn't this ruin your prior point against "human users"
And the worst solution, since the in-character morals would still be irrelevant and there would be no humans to be used around.
See this is all presuming I buy in-character morale fuckery the wiki does as fair too
Honestly, I'm somewhat surprised that you suggest that at all. If you think the character's morals are something that should absolutely show in the fight I would have thought you really want it to take place in a populated area so that the morals are actually relevant. Suggesting to move it to an abandoned place makes me think that maybe it's less that you like that aspect being relevant in matches and more that you don't want to adjust the state of mind a little to make it not relevant?
I am trying for a compromise here, I recognize not everyone wants to have characters restricted but I also want said problem fixed logically and more importantly, simply.

Central Park, New York shouldn't only be viewed as "oh it's abundant in resources", this is also just, ignoring thousands upon thousands of characters that have a SPECIAL connection to New York, now completely erased because of... reasons easily fixed otherwise.

I don't believe SBA should be accommodating for ignorance, I believe it should be accommodating for repetition, and bulking it up with confusing standards fixed easily by just changing the location.
How about this suggestion then: Every human in New York City gets safely transported elsewhere and is replaced with a philosophical zombie version of itself, which can be mind controlled, have their mind read, be turned into undead and also otherwise interacts with all powers exactly like the original would. The characters keep their morals towards bystanders, but also get the knowledge that those people in New York City aren't the actual bystanders, but just unfeeling not truly sentient bags of flesh that happen to look like them.
That way they can be in character regarding bystanders, while the bystanders at the same time are no hindrance and there are people like things for human users to use.
One could do something like that for the other locations, too, if standard assumptions for those need to be formulated at all.
Like this, I think this is overly convoluted and just... kinda ridiculous tbh.

I don't see why we need to accommodate for "Human Users" that hard, especially because we don't accomodate for alot of hyperspecific P&A like that by default, and don't get confused this is hyperspecific, I straight up don't know a single character that relevantly uses bystanders like this even though they have powers to do so (except for the only reason of exploiting bystander morals), nor have I ever seen this point brought up in the first place.

I still don't see why my point of using Chinese Ghost Cities as SBA location is poor, it's the same advantage as Central Park, but now we don't have to add paragraphs of standards to accommodate for it, if Human User is a knock against it, similar hyperspecific P&A use is a knock against Central Park.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
Also I am slightly confused, isn't this discussion derailment? I don't see how this is relevant to the Location Profiles discussion, at least relevantly.

Whether or not SBA changes are made, the wiki doesn't adjust its listing in regards to it, so the bystanders will STILL be listed on the files
 
Last edited:

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
Honestly I also believe that this is somewhat more to do with General Wiki Standards than the Locations directly. As Impress says, this is more to do with battles and hardly changes the format or rules specifically for the Location Profiles.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
Okay. So have all the necessary drafts for applying the new standard format page been finished?
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
The standard format page is complete afaik. I believe we have not yet had a draft of a written out rules and regulations page, or should we include such in the Standard Format Page?
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
In order to avoid repetition, the wiki enforces the following standards to location profiles,:
  • Locations deemed too mundane and similar to real world locations, will likely be deleted on a case-by-case basis.
  • Locations with extremely inconsistent structuring with no canonical reasoning for such, are not allowed
  • Locations which are already covered within another file, will be heavily scrutinized in regards to their necessity.
Add this to the Editing Rules?
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
3,649
722
So, I want to bring a up a few things:

1. How do we index profiles by size if we don't know the exact sizes of the said locations?
a. Do we list it by small, medium, large, very large?
b. Use things like, room, multi-building, city wide, continental etc.
c. Leave it as unknown

2. Do we add specific categories for locations
a. Rooms, buildings, cities etc.
b. Do we add Radiation Users to locations that have radiation nearby
c. I assume we'll need a "Locations" category as well
d. Anything else that might be needed
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
The standard format page is complete afaik. I believe we have not yet had a draft of a written out rules and regulations page, or should we include such in the Standard Format Page?
I would prefer if we add the relevant rules to the standard format page itself, yes. It makes it considerably easier to notice them for our members.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
I will work on this then.
I can go through this thread for everything that has been spoken of, but a summary would be appreciated of what should be added.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
1. How do we index profiles by size if we don't know the exact sizes of the said locations?
a. Do we list it by small, medium, large, very large?
b. Use things like, room, multi-building, city wide, continental etc.
c. Leave it as unknown

2. Do we add specific categories for locations
a. Rooms, buildings, cities etc.
b. Do we add Radiation Users to locations that have radiation nearby
c. I assume we'll need a "Locations" category as well
d. Anything else that might be needed
I must have missed this somehow.
1: B would be the preferable value, this give much more information than anything else.
2: A and C will likely be helpful. I also think that mixing Passive Effects with the P&A categories likely wouldn't be a good idea.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
I will work on this then.
I can go through this thread for everything that has been spoken of, but a summary would be appreciated of what should be added.
Well, if I do not misremember, me and Impress think that it seems inappropriate to have locations be populated with bystanders or interfering monsters during matchups, but Promestein and DontTalk disagree, so I am not sure what we should do in that regard.

Anyway, a "Locations" category would be useful as an obligatory addition to all relevant pages, yes.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
Well, if I do not misremember, me and Impress think that it seems inappropriate to have locations be populated with bystanders or interfering monsters during matchups, but Promestein and DontTalk disagree, so I am not sure what we should do in that regard.
I see. Would that be included on the Standard Format for Locations page or on another Guideline page?
I will note it on the Standard Format page briefly for now, while i'm noting everything else. I can then expand on it later if it's decided either way.

For the record, I personally believe that for legitimate Versus Threads, then the likes of Bystanders or Monsters would fall under Outside help, and that involving them would likely be more appropriate in Fun and Games battles. I can see more of an argument for Bystanders than I can for monsters though.
Granted I do not partake in Versus Threads at all personally and am only here for the Indexing side of the wiki. So I may not be the most helpful regarding them.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
118,109
27,970
I see. Would that be included on the Standard Format for Locations page or on another Guideline page?
I will note it on the Standard Format page briefly for now, while i'm noting everything else. I can then expand on it later if it's decided either way.
The locations page should be fine. Thank you.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
I have added the first rough draft of the Rules I have found discussed in the thread to the Template Sandbox here. They will obviously need expanding on and cleaning up, which I can do soon, unless someone else wishes to handle that.

I just want to talk about another minor thing while I'm here:
  • While making the edits I realized that if we were to merge a profile type (Such as making Hell (Doom) a Location profile too), then now that the original "Powers and Abilities" section of the Location Profiles has been changed to "Passive Effects" they will conflict with one another. So it may be worth changing that section back to Powers and Abilities for Location Profiles. I have seen people such as Bambu disagree with "Passive Effects" as a name too, as not all effects of a location will be passive, so it is likely best to change it.
 

Promestein

Cicada Killer
VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
7,823
3,614
Bystanders are different from like, potentially interfering monsters and shit

Do what you want
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
...it's written kinda weirdly, and unlike typical standard formats.

Also I will say the Location Rules thing looks kinda ugly, I think it's better to list it in the Editing Rules.

I know that sacrifices SOME accessibility, but I think it just looks FAR better formatted
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
Another potential point for Location Profiles is that some characters are fought exclusively in a special arena, which would arguably be a necessity to note on their profiles as some of the arenas offer necessary information about how a character fights or how a battle with them would go. Instead of just bringing this location up arbitrarily in a battle with no information, I believe an optional extra section on profiles would be in order, along the lines of a "Standard Arena", which would link to an Arena Profile of such areas.
I believe that this was accepted along with the other revisions. Perhaps we should note this on the Standard Format for Character Profiles as an Optional Section.

I have moved the Rules of Location Profiles to the bottom of the Standard Format Page. I will expand and clean them up when I get some time.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
Do the rules seem fine in general or should somebody else preferably help? Since I'm unsure of what more I can add to them myself.
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
3,649
722
Looks good. My only nit-pick is that maybe placing the image in the centre and making it slightly bigger, if we're putting on full size maps layouts/schematics of the area instead maybe?
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
Personally I believe that the sections that were removed in Impresses draft shouldn't have been. They should be kept on the profiles in my opinion.

I do agree with the change of the image, I believe it should be a shot of the area by default, any maps would likely be better in the Gallery.
I also agree that "Resources" is likely a better name than Composition for that section.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
Looks good. My only nit-pick is that maybe placing the image in the centre and making it slightly bigger, if we're putting on full size maps layouts/schematics of the area instead maybe?
Works fine.
Personally I believe that the sections that were removed in Impresses draft shouldn't have been. They should be kept on the profiles in my opinion.
I feel they were repetitive and unconcise :v, Hazards and Passive Effects, you just created TWO sections to list P&A, which is uncommon with EVERY OTHER standard format

Also I just didn't think the Vs. Debate exclusion made sense when we also MADE RULES to null unfairness of them.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
I feel they were repetitive and unconcise :v, Hazards and Passive Effects, you just created TWO sections to list P&A, which is uncommon with EVERY OTHER standard format
I was moreso thinking of the likes of Thorns or Spikes when talking about the Hazards section, Passive Effects would be actual abilities and Hazards would be environmental properties that make the area dangerous. If that makes sense.
Also I just didn't think the Vs. Debate exclusion made sense when we also MADE RULES to null unfairness of them.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here lol, sorry.

If you mean the note between the Format and the Rules section then that's possibly gonna be removed anyway, it's just that it hasn't been decided either way yet so I'm leaving it there until a decision is made on that subject.
 
Last edited:

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
I was moreso thinking of the likes of Thorns or Spikes when talking about the Hazards section, Passive Effects would be actual abilities and Hazards would be environmental properties that make the area dangerous. If that makes sense.
Yeah and I think that's kinda unnecessary, and doable moreso in Notable Areas proper.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here lol, sorry.
You had listed that environmental hazards were just not allowed in Versus Threads.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
Yeah and I think that's kinda unnecessary, and doable moreso in Notable Areas proper.
I don't think the likes of a spike on the wall or something else would go into the Notable Areas section.
You had listed that environmental hazards were just not allowed in Versus Threads.
If you mean this:
  • Note: Most environmental features will not factor into a battle as they would be classed as outside help. If environmental features are wanted to be included in a battle, it must be on the Fun and Games forum.
Then it's what I was referring to here.
that's possibly gonna be removed anyway, it's just that it hasn't been decided either way yet so I'm leaving it there until a decision is made on that subject.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
I mean I don't think it's worth noting at all if it's something THAT minor
That was an example off of the top of my head, there would be other stuff included. But the likes of spikes are absolutely notable to a battle anyways.
 
680
52
It would be ok for an area to be insanely extreme right? Because, I’m thinking of a location with passive concept,law,soul,mind,bfr, and also cold. There’s no issue if not many people can actually do combat there right?
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
If it's a spike pit it's a notable area
ok but what if the entire floor is laced with spikes? What if there's spiked walls? Or saws scattered around the place, or hanging obstacles/dangers. These would not fall under notable areas or passive abilities, but would certainly need noting in a section of their own.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
It would be ok for an area to be insanely extreme right? Because, I’m thinking of a location with passive concept,law,soul,mind,bfr, and also cold. There’s no issue if not many people can actually do combat there right?
Yeah.
ok but what if the entire floor is laced with spikes? What if there's spiked walls? Or saws scattered around the place, or hanging obstacles/dangers. These would not fall under notable areas or passive abilities, but would certainly need noting in a section of their own.
No this can just be listed in Notable Areas, OR just Effects (I purposely didn't list it as Passive Effects anymore)
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
No this can just be listed in Notable Areas, OR just Effects (I purposely didn't list it as Passive Effects anymore)
I don't agree that that sort of stuff would come under notable areas, saying "The floor is laced with spikes" does not inform about a Notable Area. Also it's still listed as Passive Effects on yours?

I also don't think this would be an "Effect" which the section is for what can be summed up as an actual general effect of the area, such as Mind Manip or something similar. Spikes does not fall under that category imo, unless we're giving Locations Natural Weaponry or something.
 

Promestein

Cicada Killer
VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
7,823
3,614
Condense it into just "Effects", I don't give a fuck, whatever. Just detail spikes in environment.

No Mathiverse page, also.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
Condense it into just "Effects", I don't give a fuck, whatever. Just detail spikes in environment.
Perhaps the likes of Spikes/Saws/etc fits better in Environment yes. I still believe Hazards should simply be a sub-section of Environment though, and that Spikes shouldn't be simply merged into the section.
So it would be:

Environment:
  • Resources/Composition:
  • Hazards:
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
I believe that the removed section "Hazards" should stay.
Imp said that what goes in Hazards can also go in Effects or Notable Areas, which I disagree with for multiple reasons, and it generally doesn't make sense imo.
Promestein said that what goes in Hazards could go in the "Environment" section, to which I agree, but still believe Hazards should be a sub-section, and not completely merged with the section.
 
3,257
201
What about my idea. The definition of hazard is "a potential source of danger" this includes most passive effects and it is rather simple to note there is a spike in the middle of the room and say the area is void of magic like how in dnd has the threads of magic torn to explains power null of magic.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
I just think Hazards section will just end up harboring repeated information, and Effects covere it completely fine.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
That isn't what the Effects section is for though. General environmental features such as Mind Manipulation, a Toxic Atmosphere, or something like that is very different to there being set traps, obstacles, fortifications, or more in the area.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
7,837
2,768
Why CAN'T it be that, explain this to me. The file isn't up so you can't talk in absolutes
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,194
1,260
Because it seems weird to me to place them in the same category.
Effects: Passive Mind Manipulation (Alters the mind of those who enter), Diseased Atmosphere (The air is ridden with disease), Spiked walls, saws on the floors.

That doesn't sound right to me at all. It would be like putting this on a character profile.
P&A: Mind Manipulation (Can control minds), Fire Manipulation (Can shoot fire from their hands), has ropes hanging from them, has a spike on their hand.

It's actually less of a case than that, since Weapon Mastery or Natural Weaponry and similar does exist for Character Profiles, on a Location Profile it'd just be a small bit of writing in the effects section which would look messy imo.

I wasn't talking in absolutes. As the one who created the current draft of the template, I was explaining how I viewed the section.
 
16,424
2,922
Also, regarding "physical" hazards, perhaps a durability should be listed for them? Namely so some users don't think that any character would be potentially injured by them regardless of their own durability, like how we don't assume sharp things negate durability normally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top