• 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.

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
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.
I don't think it's weird at all tbh :/
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), Thread Manipulation, Natural Weaponry (Possesses spikes)
Fixed your poor example for you.

Yeah no I don't see a single problem
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 don't see how this makes sense??

Again I just straight up, think this will NEVER be used for the shit you're claiming for most location files, and will just list redundant information after redundant information.

Tell you what, I will not agree with "Hazards" but I can allow for Notable Objects. That covers your thing AND any equipment present on the location.

And noting all of these, I think we can combine them all as:

Notable Features:
  • Inhabitants:
  • Areas:
  • Objects:
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
Fixed your poor example for you.
You'd seriously give Thread Manipulation to somebody who has ropes on them?
Again I just straight up, think this will NEVER be used for the shit you're claiming for most location files, and will just list redundant information after redundant information.
You don't think that environmental or physical obstacles/traps/etc will ever be noted on a profile? How are these things redundant?

Lets assume all of the walls in this image are spiked as on the left. Something that is present in fiction a lot.
Could you tell me how all of the walls in an example like this are Effects/Abilities, Notable Areas, or Notable Objects. Moreso than they are simple Hazards in the arena.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
You'd seriously give Thread Manipulation to somebody who has ropes on them?
I wouldn't even list them to begin with then, location or otherwise.
You don't think that environmental or physical obstacles/traps/etc will ever be noted on a profile? How are these things redundant?
Because almost every negative EFFECT, is by DEFINITION, a HAZARD. Any distinction you make otherwise, is arbitrary.
Could you tell me how all of the walls in an example like this are Effects/Abilities, Notable Areas, or Notable Objects. Moreso than they are simple Hazards in the arena.
Notable Features:
  • Stakes lined across the arena, various weapons present on the ground
It's... not a tough concept. In fact it's getting slightly... annoying that you're not understanding things this simple
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
I haven't the time or willpower to discuss this any further.
Not once did you mention a Notable Features section. You stuck to random sections that didn't make sense.
I understand what you're saying, I'm explaining why I believe you're wrong. The thing threads are meant for y'know.

But cool. Let's just go with Notable Features for Spikes and stuff. As long as they get mentioned I don't care where they are anymore.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
Not once did you mention a Notable Features section.
Tell you what, I will not agree with "Hazards" but I can allow for Notable Objects. That covers your thing AND any equipment present on the location.

And noting all of these, I think we can combine them all as:

Notable Features:
  • Inhabitants:
  • Areas:
  • Objects:
.>w>
Would this be an acceptable solution?
I think my current "Notable Features" suggestion may be better abit more since it simplifies the format ALOT, and I think Environment being left for climatic conditions may be for the better :v
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
Okay, so are the rest of you fine with if we use "Notable Features" instead?
 

AKM sama

Prepare for trouble!
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
Human Resources
9,887
10,185
I was asked to comment here again. I'm fine with Impress's draft. Besides what I had already said previously, I don't really have any issues with the other details. In case there are contentions, I'll rely on Prom's judgment.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
Okay. Thank you for the reply. Does anyone else have something to add?
 
4,145
685
I think we decided that is and SBA level problem characters have character traits for better or for worse I will point out the no give up rule and social influencing doesn't mention being allowed to convince people to give up so I don't know.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
We still need to decide if Civilians are outside help.
Only if they would tilt the fight to the advantage of one of the combatants.

Aren't such circumstances already disallowed according to Impress' draft page?
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
Yes. I'll apply the notable features then, and then we're good to publish my draft, correct?
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
As far as I am concerned it should be fine, but other staff members also have a say, so we should preferably wait a little while longer.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
Okay. That is probably fine then.

Should we call the page "Standard Format for Location Profiles" to follow the pattern for all of our other instructions pages of this type?
 

Colonel_Krukov

VS Battles
FC/OC Battles
Content Moderator
Thread Moderator
Image Helper
5,248
4,099
I don't think Japan is going to be allowed, unless it deviates a lot from the real world equivalent enough (Not knowledgeable, just saying). You could maybe do a Monster Island profile though.
 

ElixirBlue

VS Battles
Content Moderator
8,939
1,839
Examples to what section?
* Locations deemed too mundane and similar to real world locations, will likely be deleted on a case-by-case basis.
** Japan (Godzilla)

* Locations with extremely inconsistent structuring with no canonical reasoning for such, are not allowed
** Mushroom Kingdom (Mario Bros)

Suggestions for examples that could apply for a location profile.

* Death Star (Star Wars), The Leaf Village (Naruto), Hyrule; Ocarina of Time (Legend of Zelda), Space Colony Ark (Sonic the Hedgehog), etc
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
* Locations deemed too mundane and similar to real world locations, will likely be deleted on a case-by-case basis.
** Japan (Godzilla)

* Locations with extremely inconsistent structuring with no canonical reasoning for such, are not allowed
** Mushroom Kingdom (Mario Bros)

Suggestions for examples that could apply for a location profile.

* Death Star (Star Wars), The Leaf Village (Naruto), Hyrule; Ocarina of Time (Legend of Zelda), Space Colony Ark (Sonic the Hedgehog), etc
I mean I think we already have enough examples, but go for it ig
 
16,715
3,198
Also some things over the page:

If the location in question is basically a place such as entire universe with nothing to really add cosmologically speaking, what would be inserted in the "Location" section that wouldn't just be redundantly saying its name?

It also bugs me a bit that all sentences at the bottom end with a "." except:
  • Please refrain from creating profiles for real world locations, as most of them are very mundane
(...)
  • Locations with extremely inconsistent structuring with no canonical reasoning for such, are not allowed
Also, this has a weird wording:
  • If a Location is better represented Profile Format, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is best to pick them over the above stated format.
It should be something like this instead:
  • If a Location is better represented in another format, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is best to pick them over the above stated format.
The above is a bit more explicit and grammatically coherent, maybe some basic ideas could be also mentioned over in which scenarios another sort of format would be appreciated more, such as "sentient" places generally fitting more as a character profile, it would also be nice to know where to draw the line between a civilization profile and this.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
Also some things over the page:

If the location in question is basically a place such as entire universe, what would be inserted in the "Location" section that wouldn't just be redundantly saying its name?

It also bugs me a bit that all sentences at the bottom end with a "." except:
  • Please refrain from creating profiles for real world locations, as most of them are very mundane
(...)
  • Locations with extremely inconsistent structuring with no canonical reasoning for such, are not allowed
Seems minor tbh
Also, this has a weird wording:
  • If a Location is better represented Profile Format, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is best to pick them over the above stated format.
It should be something like this instead:
  • If a Location is better represented in another format, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is best to pick them over the above stated format.
The above is a bit more explicit and grammatically coherent, maybe some basic ideas could be also mentioned over in which scenarios another sort of format would be appreciated more, such as "sentient" places generally fitting more as a character profile.
Oh yeah that sentence is messy because iirc I wrote it half one time and the other half other time.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885

Done
Thank you for helping out.

I have added a link to the page to the wiki navigation bar.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
* Locations deemed too mundane and similar to real world locations, will likely be deleted on a case-by-case basis.
** Japan (Godzilla)

* Locations with extremely inconsistent structuring with no canonical reasoning for such, are not allowed
** Mushroom Kingdom (Mario Bros)

Suggestions for examples that could apply for a location profile.

* Death Star (Star Wars), The Leaf Village (Naruto), Hyrule; Ocarina of Time (Legend of Zelda), Space Colony Ark (Sonic the Hedgehog), etc
That seems fine to add to me.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
Why are some of the rules from my draft missing from impresses version? I only added what I found was agreed on this thread so whatever is in that list of rules should be.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
What rules are you referring to? I can unlock the regular locations format page for you to edit if you wish.

 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
There's a few in the draft that I noticed were missing a couple days ago but was unable to comment at the time as I was preparing for a holiday. Which I'm currently on, so unfortunately I'm unable to edit wiki pages properly for a couple weeks as I'm on mobile.

Stuff regarding how to handle profiles that fall under two types of format such as the death star, dooms hell, and ego the living planet have been blatantly changed to supposedly completely disallow them. Which wasn't agreed and the solution was to merge the page formats in a case like that. Similar to how Hell (Doom) is currently a civ and a character profile in one. Multiple examples of this were given in the op and it was agreed that it worked.

There was also some other stuff I believe that was different in the list that I cannot think of right now, as I'm still on mobile. I will check again later though.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
Basically anything in the OP draft (excluding the rule regarding civilians and inhabitant being outside help, which was unfinished anyways) was agreed in this thread, so if they're missing from the current page, they should be added.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
Okay. Is some staff member here willing to help out with evaluating that, and applying the edits if necessary?
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
Stuff regarding how to handle profiles that fall under two types of format such as the death star, dooms hell, and ego the living planet have been blatantly changed to supposedly completely disallow them. Which wasn't agreed and the solution was to merge the page formats in a case like that. Similar to how Hell (Doom) is currently a civ and a character profile in one. Multiple examples of this were given in the op and it was agreed that it worked.
  • If a Location is better represented by another profile format, such as a Weapon or a Character, then it is best to pick them over the above stated format.
The rule is already there, examples you can provide, personally I didn't put any yet because I feel like ALOT of them need re-evaluation.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
That wasn't the agreed rule.

The agreed version was that it was fine to merge the formats if necessary and make a hybrid of sorts. There are examples of how this would work in the OP and many agreed that it worked well and wasn't messy.

It is how we currently treat Hell (Doom), and that works perfectly fine with no complaints, and is a much better solution than splitting the profile. Or simply not making it into either a character or civ profile.
 

The_Impress

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
8,524
3,418
That wasn't the agreed rule.

The agreed version was that it was fine to merge the formats if necessary and make a hybrid of sorts. There are examples of how this would work in the OP and many agreed that it worked well and wasn't messy.
Let's discuss this then.

It's a nonsensical rule that leads to a VERY fugly profile and cluttered to shit.

Not to mention this sounds VERY exploitable to get random verses to higher tiers.

I don't know who agreed to this, but this is VERY wrong.

In summation, this is a VERY bad rule version you're talking about.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
The profiles look fine and work well. Once I get home from my holiday many people, including staff agreed that the example profiles in the OP will be examples for the rule. So you're simply wrong when you say they look "fugly"

How would you get verses to a higher tier through this at all?

I disagree with that.

I believe it's fine and works. It's worked with Hell for about a year now and absolutely nobody has had a problem with that. Nobody else has shown issue with the examples in the OP either except you.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
For the record, if what is being suggested is to merge different profile formats so tiers can be added to locations, for example, I strongly agree with Impress.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
It would simply be a better solution than making separate profiles for the same thing. I believe you have agreed with this too on this thread Ant. It's been done before and has had no problems from anyone. It would only apply to those profiles that actually need it such as those mentioned already. Obviously giving any random location a tier is stupid and unnecessary, but some do need one as they're characters too. It's all in the OP.

There's also the rule that impress added about structures that vary between incarnations (such as the mushroom kingdom). That was still being discussed and was not a concluded rule. But was added anyway for some reason.

Overall I don't believe this thread was nearly concluded and has been rushed along if I'm honest. So now we have to play catchup before too many profiles are made with the wrong rules. We already have a green hill zone which I don't think would fall under imps current chosen ruleset as it's a similar case to the mushroom kingdom.

I'm on holiday so haven't the time to be completely active. But I want to continue this discussion.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
Well, if you are only talking about sentient locations, that are both individuals and places of potential fights, such as Ego the Living Planet for example, I suppose that might make sense, but in that case it is likely better to give them one standard profile page and one location profile page instead.
 

Armorchompy

VS Battles
Thread Moderator
Calculation Group
7,824
3,024
I disagree, I think fusing them is way more logical, making two pages for a character under a different light would be really weird and go against how we currently treat things such as sentient weapons
 
16,715
3,198
If we're going to "fuse" formats, we're going to need an standard for those at the very least, letting users do as they please leads to inconsistent pages with questionable at best formatting.
 
5,017
354
so, uhh, a profile for central park would be allowed, right? it's relatively mundane, and it's literally a real place, but according to sba most of our fights take place there.
 
16,715
3,198
Bobsican is correct. I still prefer my suggestion though.
Well, my suggestion is still compatible with your suggestion in any case, namely just doing as a standard that this kind of cases just would get ported into multiple profiles, with the main difference between each one being the format used, a character profile indexes the stats of it, the civilization page lists the stats of the inhabitants (if any), a location page lists the characteristics of the place itself and so on.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
Bobsican is correct. I still prefer my suggestion though.
there's no need for a format, just sections from each format are to be on the page. It's pretty easy to know what goes where since most profiles share some sections anyway. So just added them relative to one another.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
Well, my suggestion is still compatible with your suggestion in any case, namely just doing as a standard that this kind of cases just would get ported into multiple profiles, with the main difference between each one being the format used, a character profile indexes the stats of it, the civilization page lists the stats of the inhabitants (if any), a location page lists the characteristics of the place itself and so on.
So you agree with me about multiple types of pages then?
there's no need for a format, just sections from each format are to be on the page. It's pretty easy to know what goes where since most profiles share some sections anyway. So just added them relative to one another.
I think that it would unavoidably turn messy and incoherent without set standards to use. My apologies.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
We can have standards and rules for it yes. But an entire new standard format page seems like too much to me, it's not many rules to follow.
 
16,715
3,198
So you agree with me about multiple types of pages then?

I think that it would unavoidably turn messy and incoherent without set standards to use. My apologies.
I'd rather have some semblance of standard than not (And so I entirely disagree with the stance of KieranH10), and I'd rather there only being a single page per "being", rather than dividing them almost redundantly for some extra details that would be within most formats anyways.

However, if we're going to aim to index the information that would be covered in multiple formats regardless, I'd rather your suggestion of making multiple pages with separate formats in lack of better options.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
It is becoming difficult for me to keep up with this thread reliably while I'm away.

There's still a lot more that I feel we need to do before everything is ready and complete. I don't know why this thread was rushed along and many things were changed at a moments notice in the new format.

It's making the thread feel messy and we're getting profiles that don't follow the current rules being uploaded, and some are being denied that shouldn't be.

Please give me some time to get home and compile a new thread or something. I have solutions but cannot get them across well over mobile.

I believe this should be closed personally.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
Isn't it better if we just wait for you to get back home and post your solutions here then? Otherwise most of the members who have responded to this thread will likely not notice your suggestions.
 

KieranH10

VS Battles
Calculation Group
2,721
2,007
Keeping this open will result in discussions I'm unable to keep up with. I'd rather be there for the discussions as I've genuinely put a lot of thought into this subject for many months now. I'd at least like to have a say in those discussions, which i may not if I'm not here for them.
 
10,684
2,471
Keeping this open will result in discussions I'm unable to keep up with. I'd rather be there for the discussions as I've genuinely put a lot of thought into this subject for many months now. I'd at least like to have a say in those discussions, which i may not if I'm not here for them.
I agree with KieranH10 here.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
Okay. I can close this thread if you wish then, but then you need to inform me about when you have created your new thread, so I can link to it here.
 

Antvasima

Maintenance worker
VS Battles
Bureaucrat
Sysop
124,318
31,885
Okay. No problem. I will close this thread then.

Remember to post a link to both this thread and the new one in your coming reminder to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top