• 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.
Everyone has different views of skill. Some people like me don't agree with Rakudai skill just becaause of how bullshit it actually is compared to mechanics of other verses and sounds absolutely braindead. Others think it's airtight. Some people think experience factors into skill, some series like Digimon treat tactics and experience as apart of skill. It depends on the verse hence why I find skill debates to really be pointless overall.
 
This is not about skill debates I believe.

This is about skill in fights. So normal fights where skill is a factor rather than just pure skill debates

Point is a system or rules on skills are just stupid. If you can debate them fair if you can't, too bad.
 
I mean, mystic martial arts is a pretty common gimmick in action stories. Especially easten ones.

Edit:

How do we compare blatantly impossible feats to just really unrealistic ones though? I have no idea.
 
"Mystical martial arts" do not really means anything without context, it must have a fighting style, and then people debate parting from it.

Not sure what do you mean with that last part.
 
By "Mystic Martial Arts", I obviously mean martial arts techniques that are no different from magic in terms of being fictional. Stuff like pressure point strikes and a lot of Rakudai skill stuff.

And in the last part I was refering to this nort knowing how to compare realistic martial arts with mystic martial arts.
 
You should be able to compare who'd win in a battle just with feats. The issue would be on those "who's more skilled" threads, since those things aren't really comparable.
 
"Who's more skilled thread" are just battles for fun. Not serious battles. Those are just things people from verses who are renown for skill do to compare. You don't need to do it.

We need a system about those about as much as we need a system for "Saitama vs The Presence F&G Board".
 
I agree about that we preferably need an instruction page that sets up a system for how to rate skill levels. However, I am unable to help out with this myself. Perhaps you could ask Sera EX, DontTalkDT, Promestein, and several rational administrators and discussion moderators to comment here?
 
M3X said:
Something I think that is ridiculous when judging skill feats is a statement about "He knows all martial skills known by man" and he only display basic kicks and punchs.
Yes that's about Batman and who fought him. Endure it. A bit of off topic but still
Click to expand...
I mean I sort of agree but let's not act like Bruce just uses punches and kicks
 
What more can you display aside from kicks/punches/elbows/knees/grabs/tackles/headbutts :p Knowing every martial art is cool but it's better to see in practice to see how one person uses it in battle. Same case with swordsmanship.
 
Kind of disagree with M3X. A technique being basic does not demonstrate that the person lacks knowledge. Much like as Bruce Lee said about fearing the man that practices one kick 1000 times, not the man who practiced 1000 kicks one time each, Batman usually resorts to such maneuvers because they are often sufficient to deal with what he is facing. Just because you know fancy techniques doesn't mean that you need to use them everytime (Or even most of the time) to show how skilled you are.

He is shown to use complex techniques several times, in fact. Ribbing Batman for mostly using the basic skills kind of goes against everything people who train in martial arts are taught, at least of my knowledge.
 
They ca be used effectively, but usually they are a terrible idea in a fight. They inherently let your guard down since you spin and show your back to the opponent.
 
IMO the most simplistic stuff is sometimes the most effective in battle, not only attacks but also reaction time to block, parry or dodge is good example of skill, like here.

One of my favorite examples of pure skil is Snake vs Liquid of MGS4 , no fancy stuff, no flexing, no flashy flowery language, just two veteran old men beating the shit out of each other using CQC.
 
Indeed. In real life, usually the simplest stuff is what carries you through a street fight alive. Of course, in the ring or if you have some seriously steely nerves, some fancy techniques may be needed to counter certain tactics, but even then, the basics are what dominate most of the fights.
 
Firephoenixearl said:
Rating skill levels is purely subjective though. There are so many types of "skill" that you might as well be trying to rate "hax (in general)".
Click to expand...
This is a good point. Perhaps it is too hard to write a proper instruction page for this.
 
Okay. Should we close this thread then?
 
@Firephoenix True, the amount of wins and losses shouldn't be used as a reliable system to be factored for skill. From what I could know, a possible way you could describe a list of skills probably be something similar to this:

List of Skills = Level of Fighting Experience (Novice, Expert or Master Combatant + reasons why; length of consistent combat training time) | All Physical, Mental, Profession and Combative-based skills
 
I don't think people overrate skill. If you're less skilled than someone in hand to hand combat or swordplay or what not and have no "supernatural" (although most fictional "skill" is literally impossible for normal humans to do whether or not it's physically possible in theory) abilities to compensate then there is nothing wrong with merely saying X is vastly more skilled than Y in this case, so X will be more likely to win. This is what skill debates are. I can understand why it's frustrating though but the logic behind it is sound.

In fiction experience doesn't necessarily mean they will be more skilled than someone with less experience, age is kinda non-factor. Especially when you take into account Accelerated Development.

Also I agree with Earl, skill is too subjective which is why skill debates exist. Two characters can both be extremely skilled but context of a fight matters like what skill will be useful etc.
 
@Emperor I never claim "more skills > less skills" for everything though.

Other than that, in some cases with 3-D characters (since skills for higher-dimensionals is considered irrelevant to them at that point) with comparable statistics who lack hax, combative skills would be a factor to this. The character's fighting experience only applies as a factor for this scenario if its greater than their opponent.

I agree, age is a non-factor, especially if the character doesn't do combat training in any given timeframe of their entire lifetime. So that just supports their fighting experience rather than what decides what level would their fighting experience be.

For Accelerated Development, from what I seen so far is mainly superhumans who are naturally born with this, humans with innate/bestowed supernatural abilities and humans who train with supernatural weapons has that but usually not always for normal humans that doesn't possess all of those qualities (and even if they do, it would be a sub-power that works similar to this but to a far lesser extent that makes it possible for any normal human could do it but then it wouldn't exactly be considered as supernatural ability in this case). The main point is that Accelerated Development would be more of a supernatural ability rather than a skill a normal human could have due to the fact that its possible to also gain more supernatural abilities too using Accelerated Development, which isn't possible for normal humans.

Physical, Mental, Profession and Combative-based skills are what any normal human can do if they shown the capability of doing so and I'm aware that characters who are superhuman in certain aspects, for example, would have an easier time doing this using supernatural abilities that allows them to do so. However, this method of determining a skill is unreliable as it would be listed separate from these type of skills and fall under the powers and abilities section instead.

Like how some characters manage to use non-combat applicable skills in combat to their advantage, regardless of whether it could be a physical or a mental-based skill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Vzearr
Small Fortnite Profiles Problem
Replies
8
Views
713
Abstractions
Abstractions
G33kedzinx
Toji intelligence downgrade
Replies
5
Views
2K
SunDaGamer
SunDaGamer
Arkenis
JJK - Page Intelligence Updates
Replies
8
Views
700
AbaddonTheDisappointment
AbaddonTheDisappointment
MarkGoldbridge
Joe Goldberg intelligence revision
Replies
4
Views
1K
Firestorm808
Firestorm808
TWILIGHT-OP
Saiki K Intelligence?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Sfgamer
Back
Top