A thing about Standard Equipment and Optional Equipment

[Eficiente]

We were also be having profiles for those items with no one actually being able to use them in vsthreads, which I believe isn't right. And I completely understand some being completely ok with that but once again, others were not doing the same before for the longest time here, and not think that's how the wiki/vs debates should be, which I'm defending since I believe this is the wiki were you should be able to do that.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

First of all, we are an indexing site. Taking note of what equipment belongs in what keys should be part of the job. Secondly, saying video game characters have an unfair advantage due to this is like saying Reinhard has an unfair advantage because he's using a 1-A spear. That's just how the material intended it.

 

[Eficiente]

The first sentence, assuming that goes against the idea of enlisting destroyed things, ignores the examples of things we do that go against that. Even then, we are also a vs debate site.

The second ignores yet again that I do agree that equipment that a character doesn't have yet is something a character shouldn't have, I have said this many times by now.

And the rest misses the point entirely. I could go over why with a summary of my points but I believe they are well explained in my last 3 comments, so please reply to that.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I don't think you understand where I was getting at with that last point. If videogame characters are OP because of the ridiculous amount of equipment they carry, then Medaka is also OP because of the ridiculous amount of powers she has. It's how the story was written, it's not unfair.

And I don't understand why this such a big deal the change isn't even something we don't already do. Why should we give characters their entire arsenal if some of it is quite literally inaccessible?

I don't even know what you're arguing for at this point. I feel like you're appealing to laziness and having to not change anything because that is going to take a lot of effort. But if you are, then that's not what having standards is about. Yes this gives some characters an advantage over others, but that's already something that happens without Optional Equipment. Some characters are just made haxier than others.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

I agree with Ovens.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Agreed with ovens

 

[Eficiente]

@Ovens I'm not at all talking about how the story is written, the point always was how people likes to use characters in a vs debates setting and how we would be removing part of that. A character being OP or not has nothing to do with that.

>"the change isn't even something we don't already do"

I don't even think you have been reading my comments then. Half the wiki used to do that before, then we allowed it under Optional Equipment, but people had different interpretations of it.

>"Why should we give characters their entire arsenal if some of it is quite literally inaccessible?"

I already said why many times, this leave me with no option but give some summary of why.

For the same reasons we allow to give characters something they don't usually have have; Because we can, because we have been doing so and because that's what other do in other sites of vs debates, this being part of what vs debates is for them.

If you were to just read my previous comments you would know that I'm well aware that "it makes more sense" if the characters had their items not destroyed. Heck you were even be aware that sense we allow P&A that characters don't have anymore then making this change of rules would be kinda redundant without removing that too, but who here was aiming to make a thread to propose a removal of that too after this thread? And then what happens to all the other examples I gave? It seems that they were just as ignored.

>"I don't even know what you're arguing for at this point. I feel like you're appealing to laziness and having to not change anything because that is going to take a lot of effort"

Then why did I agree with part of this and make a proposal to add both your proposal and the previous format?

"Just to see if we can avoid further discussion, I propose making a new secion for Standard Equipment to cover either this thread's or our current way to format the Optional Equipment, would that be ok?"

And this was in the first comment I told you to read.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Based on the precedence of restricting abilities not being added, no match where a character is given equipment they shouldn't have could be added

 

[Sir_Ovens]

First of all, how does this affect VS debates in the slightest? The immortality change was more impactful in vs debating and that rule went through. This just seperates standard and optional equipment on profiles based on keys.

Secondly, if people are having different interpretations of optional equipment, then we need to standardise ourselves by making it clear what flies and what doesn't. Why should some people adjust profiles that greatly benefit certain characters when others are dividing the equipment properly?

Thirdly, ever heard the phrase "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should"? We are already doing tons of things differently from other VS debating sites, all in the persuit of accuracy and standardization. This will only serve to make our profiles cleaner and easier to navigate through. Plus, even if we allow characters to have optional equipment they don't have, how would they even use them? For example, in character, Steven Universe has never used the Glass of Time against any opponent. Why? Because he destroyed it. From that point on, anything he does with the Glass of Time is pure speculation and borderline NLF.

We don't need another thread. This will just make the rules clearer as to what can be used in VS threads.

 

[Eficiente]

Based on the precedence of restricting abilities not being added, no match where a character is given equipment they shouldn't have could be added

I would be fine with that.

 

[Eficiente]

>"how does this affect VS debates in the slightest?"

I'm just going to give some example. Let's say you are some person who heard of a new DB and researches blogs and profiles about one of the characters in vs debates pages. In some random pages, the character's equipment is vast, as it has everything it ever had. In this page, after overwritting the Optional Equipment rules, the character's equipment would be lesser. And why would other pages had more? Because enlisting that is part of what they believe they should do when enlisting stats and info, you know, as vs debaters. As such, we as a page not doing that has a lot to do with "how people likes to use characters in a vs debates setting".

And once again, it's not as if doing that means that we say that all characters will always have everything, it is only a matter of allow enlisting that at the bottom in a different section. And yes, this is knowing that realistically that makes no sense.

The part where you compare a change in immortality with this I hope you realize that it is not as impactful, at all.

>"This just seperates standard and optional equipment on profiles based on keys."

Dude, the first thing I said here is that I agree with that part, and then I had to say it over and over. Please stop trying to make me look as if I was not ok with it.

>"Secondly, if people are having different interpretations of optional equipment, then we need to standardise ourselves by making it clear what flies and what doesn't"

Absolutely, but one interpretation doesn't need to remove the other when we can have both. ..which is why we have optional equipment in the first place. Could you imagine if the original thread were full of people saying that only standard equipment should be a thing due to being more logical?

>"Why should some people adjust profiles that greatly benefit certain characters when others are dividing the equipment properly?"

The part of "dividing" I already said I agree with. The other is connected to that. Even then, you know what also greatly benefit certain characters? All the examples I gave before of illogical and unfair things we allow, some of them not used by people and pages that do the same as us.

>"Thirdly, ever heard the phrase "Just because we can, doesn't mean we should"?"

If that were my only reason then yes, why would we be doing something just because we can?

>"We are already doing tons of things differently from other VS debating sites, all in the persuit of accuracy and standardization."

There would be no lack of accuracy in doing what you aim+add some other list. Also, you are lying, if it were all in the persuit of accuracy and standardization then we wouldn't be allowing all the illogical stuff I mentioned before.

>"This will only serve to make our profiles cleaner and easier to navigate through."

As well as more incomplete.

>"Plus, even if we allow characters to have optional equipment they don't have, how would they even use them? For example, in character, Steven Universe has never used the Glass of Time against any opponent. Why? Because he destroyed it. From that point on, anything he does with the Glass of Time is pure speculation and borderline NLF."

This is just a plus so I understand it's not as important. Before anything, again, that could be a new section, not necessarily still optional equipment. The whole argument is something that can also be said of optional equipment, if Steven were to not have that destroyed the same problem would happen. There are also characters that would use those things IC, making a generalization like that inaccurate. And even then, I would not disallow matches with special rules to be made just due to the wank in it, to not be added in profiles? Sure, that's fine for me.

 

[Eficiente]

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/2841834#6

To me, harmless. But it makes profiles more hard to navigate through so this is soon to be removed, no?

(To clarify, the comparison is not remotely the same. All the points I gave here cannot be used for that.)

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

As a heads up, how a rule affects VS Debate is secondary to how it affects our primary objective to catalogue abilities and weapons. As are the methodology of other VS Sites as opposed to developing our own. Not saying they don't matter at all, but we do have priorities.

Not to say Eficiente doesn't have other reasonable points, just pointing this out.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

So what is the general consensus here?

 

[Eficiente]

Well, here's a poll.


Opinions of what should we do

Overwrite the Optional Equipment rules and remove destroyed items from the profiles that have them in their OE
1

Overwrite the Optional Equipment rules and add a new sub-secion for Standard Equipment where destroyed items can go, moving there the destroyed items profiles have in their OE
2


The poll was created at 15:52 on June 13, 2019, and so far 3 people voted.
Please wait, submitting your vote...
Needless to say, everyone agrees that items a character doesn't have yet should not go in all keys.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I don't think you understand where I'm going with this. Optional equipment, as long as they aren't destroyed, can be used in all keys they exist in before they were destroyed. If a character loses a piece of equipment at the end of the series, just state in the OP that this is the character before they lost the equipment.

 

[Eficiente]

You are the one who doesn't understand as you are once again ignoring that an special rules that doesn't make sense isn't aimed to, well, make sense. No one can "state in the OP that this is the character before they lost the equipment" if the equipment isn't listed anywhere in the profile in the first place.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I mean isn't it a given to state a character's optional equipment in the profile should they have them? In what senario would a character who doesn't have optional equipment on their profile be subjected to having optional equipment in a VS match? What arguments would there even be then?

 

[Andytrenom]

Polls have no place in a discussion that isn't purely about tastes and preferences

 

[Eficiente]

>"isn't it a given to state a character's optional equipment in the profile should they have them?"

This optional equipment that they should have would be losed, as said before by you, so losed items can be optional equipment but destroyed items should not be listed in any way? I honestly fail to see the logic you think the wiki should have as something that fits its purpose stated in the home page. Not allow one but do allow the other that makes as much sense seems arbitrary.

>"Polls have no place in a discussion that isn't purely about tastes and preferences"

I mean, kudos and people only saying "I agree with x." should accomplish the same, with the latter taking more space. People were saying "I agree with Ovens" here for comments that did not understood my points and thought that I was believing something different to what I do, while that poll outright puts the conclusions that would end up happening here. This is not at all me saying "polls are the solution!", the discussions matter much, much more, and I'm still willing to discuss here, that was never intended to be removed.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

...

Nobody is saying we're outright removing character equipment from the profile the second it is lost in the series. We're saying that it shouldn't be assumed they have access to it if they have lost it in a certain key. If it's the same key, just mention that this is before they lost it and problem solved.

And no, actually. Kudos would be equatable to a poll but generally speaking kudos and actually agreeing with your own words are more expressive of your views and give way to something to debate, rather than a poll just telling you the numbers and going off to have a smoke.

Now, just to give my own two cents, if a character actually does lose equipment, we could do to Standard Equipment what we did to P&A, separate by tiers and add Standard, Optional, and Former.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

I agree with Bambu. Seperating equipment using keys and Standard, Optional, and Former would work best here.

 

[Eficiente]

I agree as well.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Thankfully this was resolved well. I agree with what Bambu proposes.