Addressing Profile Formatting for Glass Cannons

[Valiant_Abyss]

AKM sama has given me permission to post this here.

This thread was made to address our inconsistencies in the way we format profiles for Glass Cannon characters (characters with higher AP than their own physical durability).

I've noticed that most Glass Cannon characters are largely formatted in 1 of 2 ways, with no real reason as to why which characters have which. It's heavily inconsistent and there's no real reason why any of these glass cannon profiles should be formatted differently from other glass cannon profiles to even begin with.

Type 1: Physical stats mentioned in Tier/AP sections alongside Durability and SS​

Profiles such as MCU Sorcerers, Sans, Human Torch, Magneto, Bruce Banner, Fairly Odd Parents characters, Shoto Todoroki, Virtually every single Tier 9/8 with higher AP through weaponry, and several other characters have their Physical Tier mentioned in their Tier/AP sections of their profiles, along with the Durability section. They generally look something like this:

Tier/AP: X-X (physically), X-X with X

Striking Strength: [Insert "Physical" Tier]

Durability: [Insert "Physical" Tier] (X level with Shields/Forcefields/Magic Shields/Against X attacks/etc.)

Type 2: Physical Stats mentioned only in Durability and SS sections​

Profiles such as Marvel Comics Sorcerers, Raven (Teen Titans), Some benders like Toph and Katara, Dabi, Childlike Empress, and others have their physical tier mentioned ONLY in their Durability section alone. Their profiles look something like this:

Tier/AP: X-X (with X)

Striking Strength: [Insert "Physical" Tier]

Durability: [Insert "Physical" Tier] (X level with Shields/Forcefields/Magic Shields/Against X attacks/etc.)

This kind of formatting differentiates from profile-to-profile with no real reason as to why. Hell, some characters are inconsistent with this formatting within the same verses, like some My Hero Academia students for example. We either need to agree on one type for virtually all glass cannon profiles to follow or we need to specifically determine who should qualify for what.

Concluding Question:​

How should we treat typical formatting for Characters who have lower durability than their normal AP?

 

[PsychoWarper]

I think it depends on the characters abilities and why they have the higher AP.

If they have a weapon, magic or special abilities that are a higher Tier then I think it should be handled as Type 1 since when/if they arnt using those higher tier things they would have their lower physical AP.

While for Type 2 it would only be for people whos physical AP is a higher tier than their Durability without it being any kind of special or different power.

It makes sense theres two different types cause both of those types of glass canons exist and forcing them to be the other type doesnt properly show their capabilities.

 

[Valiant_Abyss]

Pretty much everyone you suggested to receive type 2, wouldn't be a glass cannon to begin with though, since their dura should be equal to their physical AP.

 

[PsychoWarper]

If their Durability would scale to their AP then they simply arnt a glass canon.

 

[Valiant_Abyss]

Yes, that's what I said.

 

[PsychoWarper]

I agree with that.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Wait, I thought this is already how we do things. It's common sense to separate ratings like this.

 

[Valiant_Abyss]

I presented the 2 most common ways I see Glass Cannons organized. Which one are you referring to?

 

[M3X_2.0]

None of them, just saying that we normally always separate the different tiers into different ratings, and it shouldn't be a rule or a format, since it's heavily vary from verse to verse.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

First of all, the usage of the word "Physically" is indeed redundant so that is the main thing I'd remove from AP section. Instead of "Small Building level physically, Street level to Building level with guns, I would just remove the word "Physically".

But another thing that's different is that some glass cannons do use their melee attacks regularly, while some glass cannons are like magic powers exclusively. I think it's worth mentioning some physical stats in AP section if it's something they use relatively often. But if they never punch, perhaps no need to mentioned. Characters with Unknown striking strength I feel don't need an Unknown, X tier with magic spells. Durability stuff or confirmations that they're glass cannons should be listed on durability section yes I agree.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Personally I was always in favor to not list "x tier physically, y with magic". It's simply redundant, as we have striking strength as physical attack potency already.
So a city level magician with building level striking strength and city block level durability would simply be:
Attack Potency: City level
Striking Strength: Building level
Durability: City Block level

Given, I don't awfully mind if people mention the physical strength in the AP section as well. It's redundant, but not actively harmful. There is no need to start enforcing it at this point.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm with DontTalkDT's proposal for things like Magic users yes, but glass cannons in the form of guys with various guns, I would still prefer to have their physical AP listed on the attack potency section. And I especially agree with his format if a character's striking strength is unknown.

 

[DemonGodMitchAubin]

Physicals should only be distinguished from Non-Physicals in Striking Class and Durability

There's nothing about AP that requires a mention or separation between physicals and non-physicals

 

[KLOL506]

What about profiles like Magneto, whose base keys are prominent enough to give him matches?

Would it be like this:

Attack Potency: Small Building level, Planet level with Powers

Striking Strength: Small Building Class

Durability: Small Building level, Planet level with shields?

 

[Antvasima]

Personally I was always in favor to not list "x tier physically, y with magic". It's simply redundant, as we have striking strength as physical attack potency already.
So a city level magician with building level striking strength and city block level durability would simply be:
Attack Potency: City level
Striking Strength: Building level
Durability: City Block level

Given, I don't awfully mind if people mention the physical strength in the AP section as well. It's redundant, but not actively harmful. There is no need to start enforcing it at this point.

I agree with DontTalk. It is redundant to mention this more than once, but it seems very unnecessary for us to enforce a rule about this, as it does no harm.

 

[Antvasima]

What about profiles like Magneto, whose base keys are prominent enough to give him matches?

Would it be like this:

Attack Potency: Small Building level, Planet level with Powers

Striking Strength: Small Building Class

Durability: Small Building level, Planet level with shields?

I suppose that works, yes.

 

[Bobsican]

Bumping as it seems nothing has been applied yet

 

[Antvasima]

Isn't it best to use DontTalk's suggestion?

 

[Valiant_Abyss]

I don’t think anything needs to be done here. Conclusions are basically that preferences differ from person to person, and there’s no point in enforcing a strict standard for how we handle them at this point. That’s at least what I understood.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I already said my piece that the format should probably depend on the character, but I mostly agree with DontTalkDT regarding character's who's regular fighting style is their supernatural powers. And I also agree durability feats should be mentioned and linked in the durability section same with striking strength feats. Though, characters who alternate between fighting with guns and fighting with melee should still have their striking strength tier included in the AP section IMO. I remember that causing confusion in Vs threads in the past otherwise. And this is especially true if most handguns and rifles they usually use are actually weaker tier wise than their punches.