• 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.

A problem with how skill feats are judged in general

Status
Not open for further replies.
ShivaShakti

ShivaShakti

3,461
1,724
Okay so, skill ratings currently on the wiki are quite all over the place with how they are rated and compared to the skills of other characters.

People seem to heavily confuse things like actual Knowledge / Skill with Intelligence. Intelligence is the rate at which you are able to learn / understand certain things, where as Knowledge is actually knowing how to perform tasks and do things in the right sequence.

A person who can learn things fast and replicate them, doesn't automatically make them more skilled than someone else. It simply means they are more intelligent and have a higher rate at which they learn.

Furthermore, then comes Experience. Experience often gets treated as if it scales linearly, and works addative or multiplicatively. Like saying someone who has been fighting for 1000 years has 100x more experience than someone with 10 years. Really this isn't the case as there are factors to take in like, how often the combatants fight, how often they win or lose said fights, etc. Experience needs to be taken with a bit more of a grain of salt.

Skill should be based on how knowledgable one is based on a subject, rather than how fast they can learn things in said subject. Theres a clear distinction to be made between a Prodegy and a Master.
 
Linear saling of experine is dumb but someone who lived for 1000 years will most likely be way more skilled then a 10 year old
 
Tllmbrg said:
Linear saling of experine is dumb but someone who lived for 1000 years will most likely be way more skilled then a 10 year old
Click to expand...
Not trying to imply that, more so using an example. Went ahead and reworded it
 
We go by how skill is useful in fights. Learning stuff quick is skill that's important in a fight because it means you can copy or improve your opponent's combat style. It is an important skill to have.
 
Firephoenixearl said:
We go by how skill is useful in fights. Learning stuff quick is skill that's important in a fight because it means you can copy or improve your opponent's combat style. It is an important skill to have.
Click to expand...
Again thats intelligence not knowledge.
 
Disagree with the first part. That's just part of skill. If I can predict 5 moves from an opponent and someone else 100, that effectively makes them superior in a fight, not just smarter. Learning a highly complicated technique that takes years of perfection is the same. It's simply a part of skill. This also ignores the fact that knowing something theoretically and doing something practically are two different things.

About experience... as far as I remember it's something tbat usually gets yeeted anyways without context and feats, vut I might be wrong. Haven't participated in any "most skilled" thread since the "most skilled for every tier" one
 
Something I noticed is that for example with people like Yujiro skill is treated basicaly like AP where you'd see big ass chain scaling skill from some noteworthy people, but like they all got different fighting styles so woud the skill scaling even neccarily fully translate ?
 
I agree skill and intelligence aren't the same thing, which is what annoys me over skill having to be listed on the "Intelligence" section, and obviously agree with the whole experience thing being a bunk argument without context.

But learning things fast is considered skill in series I've read, as in, explicity being stated to be a proof of the great ability of said person on that area, so I'm unsure about that part.
 
RatherClueless said:
Disagree with the first part. That's just part of skill. If I can predict 5 moves from an opponent and someone else 100, that effectively makes them superior in a fight, not just smarter. Learning a highly complicated technique that takes years of perfection is the same. It's simply a part of skill. This also ignores the fact that knowing something theoretically and doing something practically are two different things.
About experience... as far as I remember it's something tbat usually gets yeeted anyways without context and feats, vut I might be wrong. Haven't participated in any "most skilled" thread since the "most skilled for every tier" one
Click to expand...
1. Analytical prediction has really nothing to do with it. Im talking about yeeting someone's techniques into your own arsenal here, not just knowing how to predict and counter movements.

2. Again thats intelligence not knowledge, there is a distinction. Skill is a technical term for how much you know, not the rate at which you learn. Someone who is a Prodegy that can learn these moves is not suddenly more skilled than a master. Knowing a technique does not mean you know all the correct applications for it, nor does it mean you automatically outdo them. If I were to learn everything from a teacher exactly the way they know it, that would only make us equals, not make me more skilled.

Im not denying a high learning rate would be useful in a fight, im saying its a bit overhyped.
 
M3X said:
Something I think that is ridiculous when judging skill feats is a statement of "He knows all martial skills known by man" and he displays basic kicks and punchs.
Yes that about Batman and who fought him. Endure it. A bit of off topic but still
Click to expand...
I mean thats fair. Pretty vague statement too.
 
1. Both are based on "intelligence". It's hypocritical to say one is ok although it's intelligence based, while the other one isn't, although it's also intelligence based.

2. Why can't intelligence be part of skill? You kind of fail to even address that point. What is skill, if not "combat-intelligence". Your argument for it not being skill is litterally "coz it's not knowledge", which seems like a cough out tbh. What is adaptability (for example to very confusing techniques, that are ment to be hard to counter) during a fight then? Figuring out an opponents weakness by just a glance. None of those are knowledge, but they are all part of skill.

Just to give a few examples, there are the skilled, bcoz smart characters, like Shiro from NGNL, then there are characters like Goku, who are dumb as f*ck, but the guy still copied Roshi's special move by only seeing it once... as a child. Then there are characters who are simply smart and skilled, without any necessary correlation, like Nanami or Ikki, who can both master techniques, which should take years to master, on a whim. All of them are skilled in different ways for different reasons with different levels of intelligence and knowledge.
 
To be fair, how "skill" is used here is pretty vague, sometimes people refer to intelligence or wisdom, other times to combat capability and experience, and some times people even confuse it with AP (like, defeating a gang by oneself os not AP, but rather "skill").

Although, most of the time people refer to combat capability, such dexterity, agility, accuracy, combat maneouvers, etc. Experience by itself is useful, but little matter if one has 10 years gighting swordmens and then suddely fight giant spiders.
 
I agree a lot with Antoniofer and, to a point, with the author of the post. While skill differences and stuff do exist, they are mostly for specific situations, and there are often different - not necessarily less skillful - ways to respond to a given situation, but thanks to their inherent properties, may beat another skillset. And that is not accounting the various thousands of different variables that may be introduced to the fight.
 
On to answering the points of the OP now:

Intelligence and knowledge. It depends on the level. If someone can literally see you and do everything you can and better, that's learning/copying capability, but it's laughable not to factor that into "combat skill". That can be an insanely decisive factor in fights if not the decisive factor. And having galaxy brain IQ doesn't always mean you are good at copying stuff at glance.

If someone can see and learn fast, it means that if they see X dude, said character will literally be more skilled than X dude as he can perform everything X dude can and more.

Idk where this came from, but if you've been into any of my threads where i debate skill, you know that experience is not a factor. I've debunked this point countless of times and proven time and time again that with feats a middle school kid can be more skilled than a 100 year old master if all the master has going for himself is "i've fought for 100 years lol". So needless to say i agree.

Not really. Skill is not just knowledge. You can know all there is to know about swords, doesn't make you a master swordsman, there are other things to factor in. Skill in itself is a form of intelligence, knowing when and where to do what as well as how to deal with x and y. It's being smart that brings all those. Not having knowledge due to having memorized a dozen books without ever applying them in combat. Which is why an old electrician is almost always more skilled than a new engineer who has only been studying at school without trying out things.
 
However on a more wide scale.

Skill is not wisdom, not experteese, not purely intelligence it's part of all of them.

We cannot have "skill" as separate as there are many cases where a feat becomes impossible to tell where the skill ends and the intelligence or wisdom begins. As such it would create stupidity.

Skill should always be evaluated on a case by case basis rather than just "oh well x". Debate through (...yes im gonna say it...) facts and logic rather than by guidebook.

It is not hard to debate skill despite there being no system to measure it. I've been doing it for a long time now, as such i know it is not hard to figure out when skill is or isn't a factor in a fight and how much it matters against x opponent.
 
I agree with Firephoenixearl's as well. Skill is always a case-by-case analysis that cannot be separated from the wider aspects of one's mental capabilities.
 
Idk where this came from, but if you've been into any of my threads where i debate skill, you know that experience is not a factor. I've debunked this point countless of times and proven time and time again that with feats a middle school kid can be more skilled than a 100 year old master if all the master has going for himself is "i've fought for 100 years lol". So needless to say i agree.

Wh- Link
 
Swordsman that just fought with "extremely skilled character" with no much impressive feats in swordsmanship in this fight > a swordsman with very impressive swordsmanship and feats.

Don't worry, not talking about Rakudai yet.
 
SpookyShadow said:
Swordsman that just fought with "extremely skilled character" with no much impressive feats in swordsmanship in this fight > a swordsman with very impressive swordsmanship and feats.
Don't worry, not talking about Rakudai yet.
Click to expand...
Which is why i mentioned "what cases have you witnessed". And that case can be correct or incorrect depending on whether the "extremely skilled characters" are feat wise more skilled than the swordsman.
 
As far I known, these Skill Threads always turn into a mess.

I also agree that most users don't known how to deal with "skill", I see like they treat characters like Connie like the most skilled swordmen in her tier, but can they name a good use of her ability aside of parrying?
 
But it depends what he has done in this fight, not who did he fight with. That's how we judge feats. If he has shown something impressive, doesn't matter if in swordplay, strategy, martial arts or marksmanship - it's skill feat

Poor example - Orangutan can defeat Tyson. Is it mores killed than Tyson? I don't think so
 
They are better than lines and superior to figures. Points are the most unisex and diversity friendly thing ever.
 
In my opinion, skill can go into intelligence. Intelligence cannot go into skill. Say analytical prediction, if you were able to calculate trillions of movements under a second, you'd obviously need to be smart enough to comprehend all of it, yes?
 
@Antonifer

True that, but they can always call someone a little more experience. Similar to what we all do when we have to face a situation we are unsure of so we end up calling some staff member that is more knowledgeable on the topic

@Spooky

Depends. On what the feat included yes, for more debating we'll need specific cases to say whether its good scaling or not. But i don't wanna go down to specific cases, it's useless and will just end up derailing at best.

Obviously but that's an AP stomp. So there are many things to take into consideration so let's leave this for now.

@Yung

You just love points don't cha?
 
You cannot judge skill by points. Skill is much more complex than just giving it some points. You can only have a general idea.

As an example, for some feats that I'd consider as skill, there are three characters:

  • One, like D'rizzt of Dungeons and Dragons, is truly ambidextrous and can remotely control both hands perfectly. Not only that, he can move in such a way that he minimizes the biomechanical effort to deal blows to the absolute minimum. As in, he essentially gets faster blows not by lowering the time in which he executes his manouvers, but by minimizing the space every single one of them has to perform.
  • The other has perfect aim. He can, even under extreme distress and without conscious thought, aim perfectly every single attack of his in the desired point. Not limited to body parts, but to the absurd of being able to aim at individual molecules. Again, not necessarily by being faster than his opponents, but due exclusively to his aim.
  • And finally, the other one has supreme prediction. He can take the most minimal cues to predict how an enemy is going to attack and when, and not only that, but he can act perfectly rational even in the middle of a fight, always using every single technique taught to him amidst chaotic combat.
With these three, you have three entirely different skillsets that all could be accounted under skill, and under specific circumstances, with different tiers, scenarios and situations, each could trump each other. How can you distribute points? Even if we consider that one of those skillsets is usually superior to the others (Which I consider the third to be), they are different things and would need to have an arbitrary scale to determine which is superior.

Any form of point assigning is going to be essentially flawed.
 
We do not have a system for measuring skill. We debate it, and argue how it would play in a battle. We don't give it tiers.

Anyway this thread feels pointless. We have no rules for skill nor will we build a system for it. Apply logic in debates and use it to out argue the other party if possible to be done so using logic, if need help call someone you think knows how to debate or quantify skill or is more experienced.

Stop relying on systems for everything. It's a debate on battle superiority of fictional characters, not creating random systems and seeing what character fits the system more.

Anyway my last say on the topic of skill system:

Absolutely redundant and objectively wrong, we don't need to add pointless systems to the debates. Cus a system doesn't always abide by logic. So just debate on a case by case basis using logic on how skilled someone is and how much it matters, or ask people if you feel that you or the thread needs another opinion.
 
I'm completely fine with no systemize skill or combat proficiencies, but that do not changes much that most of the time people do not uses as it should, not like we could do something about it. For example, martial arts helps a lot with countering certain fighting styles, more martial arts involve more ways to counter something, but is also true that most of those works against humanoid creatures, so one can't say that x chaarcter wins via "skill" against a amorphous and insectoid being of 3 m length and 1.5 tons.
 
Yes Antonio that's why I said "on a case by case basis".

The more skilled character doesn't always win same as the physically stronger character doesn't always win.
 
Firephoenixearl said:
Yes Antonio that's why I said "on a case by case basis".
The more skilled character doesn't always win same as the physically stronger character doesn't always win.
Click to expand...
Be Ikki, be both and go Ittou Shura on everyones arses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Vizmer
Intelligence Scale Question
Replies
11
Views
666
Vizmer
Vizmer
Hasty12345
  • Locked
Saint Seiya: VIrgo Shaka intelligence downgrade
Replies
5
Views
599
Antvasima
Antvasima
Spicy78
A Random Intelligence Feat
Replies
6
Views
484
Mudducky04
DaReaperMan
Establishing combat skill requirements
5 6 7
Replies
242
Views
18K
Mahek_The_Assassin_Silent_Killer
Phoenks
  • Locked
Downgrading Ayanokouji's Intelligence
16 17 18
Replies
690
Views
38K
MCH2
MCH2
Back
Top