Adding an optional fighting style section to the standard format

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Obviously, this is just a completely optional thing and only three pages would actually need to be edited. So there wouldn't be a necessary workload for anyone.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

I support this. Can't offer any super in-depth thoughts at the moment.

 

[Amexim]

Standard Tactics and Behavior— I support this. But I also would like the information surrounding the explaination of what goes on in that category to explicitly say that describing the mechanics and applications of martial arts/fighting styles the characters have as well is a good place to start. Basically, make it a recommendation that you describe their martial arts and combat methods in a way similar to those who do Star Wars vs Battles do. Evan Nova and Jensaraii are those who come to mind.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I support it purely as an optional thing, same as Standard Attacks/Techniques. This would help verses with very clear cut tactics applied to each character, including a couple I do work on (Absolver and Dungeons and Dragons in particular).

 

[Blackcurrant91]

I suggested this like 3 months ago and no1 cared xD I am all for this. It would help avoid the whole 10 posts trying to figure out what the characters open with.

 

[Andytrenom]

I would also suggest to keep the section as objective as possible, and by that I mean only adding explicit tendencies of the character without bringing in personal interpretations into the fold

Things that can be debated about a character's personality and behaviour should only belong in the actual debate

 

[Amexim]

Maybe examples of "plays" by the characters help too? Like, a play in my mind means a strategy that uses a sequence of moves to create an outcome— think of football plays or when Naruto baited Zabuza to move his arm and free Kakashi. Could be go to strategies the characters use, like how Naruto consistently uses Transformation to **** with his enemies.

 

[Antvasima]

I suppose that this seems like a mostly harmless and constructive suggestion.

I have a few thoughts though:

Given that this would be an optional section, we probably shouldn't edit the Mediawiki page, as it is intended to detail required standard sections.

It is recurrently hard to properly define a pattern of behaviour for fictional characters that are either written to be entertaining by being reinvented as they go along/inventive and somewhat unpredictable, or have multiple writers, or both in combination, and subjective interpretations would differ a lot, so this might trigger recurrent edit wars.

Where should we place this section? Right after "Intelligence" or "Notable Attacks/Techniques"?

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

It could cause a problem if they don't really have anything they start with in particualr but I'm fine with this.

 

[ChocomilkAlex]

I suggest putting it after Intelligence

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Putting it after intelligence seems fine.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

It could cause a problem if they don't really have anything they start with in particualr but I'm fine with this.

Which is why it would be optional

 

[Flashlight237]

I decided to try checking it out myself by making a skeleton page for a fitting example (the profile on the Porcupine): https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/User_blog:Flashlight237/Procupine_with_Standard_Tactics

I thought it looked good below Intelligence and, well, that turned out to be true from personal experience.

 

[Overlord775]

I agree with the proposal

 

[DontTalkDT]

...

I can agree with the media wiki part.

If a character acts so inconsistent that it is very difficult to agree on a standard tactic, then it's fine for us to just say that we won't add the section, in my opinion.

Below Intelligence seems best. Tactics are closely related to intelligence, so that's were I would expect to find the section as a reader.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

Okay. That seems fine then. Please remember to add a note regarding the second point in the Standard Format for Character Profiles page.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Ok, I will take the general idea as accepted then.

Two things left to decide:

1. The exact name. I think "Standard Tactics" has received most support to this point. If the majority is in favour of a different name (E.g. Standard Behaviour or Standard Tactics & Behaviour were suggested) now would be a good time to express that.
2. The exact text for the standard format page. To make a first suggestion: "The usual actions taken by a character in battle. For example which actions a character will first take when fighting an unknown opponent or which abilities are used frequently, rarely or never. This section is optional and should not be added if the characters behaviour is too inconsistent to identify a usual approach."
   Suggestions for improvement are welcome.

 

[Valiant_Abyss]

Im on board with it

 

[Antvasima]

I think that "Standard Tactics" seems fine.

I tried to improve a bit on the suggested text segment:

"The usual actions taken by a character during battles. For example, which actions a character will first perform when fighting an unknown opponent or which abilities that are used frequently, rarely or never. This section is optional and should not be added if the character's behaviour is too inconsistent to identify a common approach."

 

[Skalt711]

Ummm.

1. Sure, Standard Tactics looks good.
2. I think that "The usual behaviour taken by a character in battle. For example, which actions a character will first take when fighting an unknown opponent or which abilities they will use frequently, rarely or never. This section is optional and should not be added if the character's behaviour is too inconsistent to identify a common approach." looks better.

 

[Skalt711]

Tweaked my text for the description accordingly to Antvasima's improvements:

"The usual behaviour taken by a character during battles. For example, which actions a character will first perform when fighting an unknown opponent or which abilities they will use frequently, rarely or never. This section is optional and should not be added if the character's behaviour is too inconsistent to identify a common approach."

 

[Antvasima]

I made a few more tweaks:

"The usual behaviour exhibited by a character during battles. For example, which actions a character will first perform when fighting an unknown opponent or which abilities they will use frequently, rarely, or never. This section is optional and should not be added if the character's behaviour is too inconsistent to identify a common pattern."

 

[Gojii-san]

I think the starting move changing depending on the opponent is plausible in some cases. For example, a character who has a sword that deals extra damage against dragons and a sword that deals extra damage against the undead will start with the former when facing a dragon-like enemy (e.g. King Ghidorah) and the latter when fighting something that looks like an undead (e.g. SCP-096) even if they aren't actually classified as that. One character's experience and personality and their enemy's behavior and appearance can change how the fight goes.

 

[AstralKing7]

I actually like the sound of this

 

[Antvasima]

I made a few more tweaks:

"The usual behaviour exhibited by a character during battles. For example, which actions a character will first perform when fighting an unknown opponent or which abilities they will use frequently, rarely, or never. This section is optional and should not be added if the character's behaviour is too inconsistent to identify a common pattern."

So should we use this?

 

[Wokistan]

I think it looks good.

 

[GojiBoyForever]

Yeah it checks out.

 

[Seol404]

That sounds good to me.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I suppose that DontTalkDT can probably apply the changes then.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Did the edit. I also changed the picture at the top. Should something be wrong with the new one, tell me and I can (probably) easily fix it.

 

[Skalt711]

The picture looks ugly. But if you don't mind it, then so be it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Not sure how I can make the picture more beautiful... a different font or something?

 

[Skalt711]

Try either the Arial or Calibri fonts.

 

[DontTalkDT]

That is Arial.

In Calibri it looks like this:

 

[Skalt711]

Try Calibri

 

[DontTalkDT]

See above.

 

[Skalt711]

Hmmm. Still unusually ugly, no matter what happens. I'll just photoshop the Standard Tactics onto the previously used image

 

[Skalt711]

This good?

 

[GojiBoyForever]

It's slightly darker than the others but it shouldn't be too noticeable.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Looks ok.