Aim dodging

[DontTalk]

So the question came up which standard we should apply concerning aim dodging.

The OBD, according to their article on it, interprets all reactions to projectiles as aim dodging as long as there is no evidence speaking against it.

The question is, if we want to handle it like that again or differently.

So I would like to have suggestions, opinions and reasoning from everyone.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Doesn't it say it's only aim dodging if the character moves before the projectile is fired by reacting to the source?

Isn't that already how we treat aimdodging?

 

[Dekoshu]

Let's see, instead of having the exact text, we should directly do something about that by testing and finding genuine examples. In other words, we need to handle it in a different way without making it look exactly the same.

 

[Yamatohime]

Normal humans can actualy dodge when they are targeted if there are at least 15-20 meters (from single shot). Is it this type of aim dodging?

 

[Mandrakk_The_Dark_Monitor]

Sounds like a chat about reaction speed

 

[Drac32Drac]

Fact is, normal humans can't dodge normal bullets solely based upon reacting to the muzzle flash. Even at 50 meters, a normal human can't really hope to dodge it. It's just too fast without superhuman attributes.

Aim dodging is about reading the opponent and predecting when and where they are going to fire as they are in the process of pulling the trigger, so to speak, giving much more time to maneuver out of the way.

The reason for assuming as aim dodging first is that it actually lowers the requirements of copmleting the feat compared to being purely based upon reflexes... unless there is sufficient reason to believe that it is a true reation.

 

[DontTalk]

Doesn't it say it's only aim dodging if the character moves before the projectile is fired by reacting to the source?
Isn't that already how we treat aimdodging?

We didn't officially discuss a standard about it at this point. What the OBD article states is that if we don't know if the character reacted to the projectile specifically, but could also have reacted to the gun or the trigger being pulled for example, it would be assumed to be aim dodging.

I don't think we have actively handled it like that to this point.

 

[Faisal_Shourov]

Isn't aim dodging looking at the source and move away before action happens by predicting?

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

We didn't officially discuss a standard about it at this point. What the OBD article states is that if we don't know if the character reacted to the projectile specifically, but could also have reacted to the gun or the trigger being pulled for example, it would be assumed to be aim dodging.

I don't think we have actively handled it like that to this point.

This is true, so it might just be good to clarify how being able to react to say...a laser or a bullet before it is fired isn't a speed feat that can be used to scale to said projectiles.

 

[Drac32Drac]

We didn't officially discuss a standard about it at this point. What the OBD article states is that if we don't know if the character reacted to the projectile specifically, but could also have reacted to the gun or the trigger being pulled for example, it would be assumed to be aim dodging.

I don't think we have actively handled it like that to this point.

This is true, so it might just be good to clarify how being able to react to say...a laser or a bullet before it is fired isn't a speed feat that can be used to scale to said projectiles.

This is true... but by contrast, reacting to a reflection of said laser that wasn't expected, might be a scalable feat.

 

[Alakabamm]

I have a suggestion about this. We should only dismiss speed feats as aimdodging if:

a) a character mentions it as part of their skillset at some point

b) the character is clearly leading the opponent in the fight

c) the character has precognition

d) the character shows zigzagging in their fight movement against such linear projectiles

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

This is true... but by contrast, reacting to a reflection of said laser that wasn't expected, might be a scalable feat.

That should likely be the case. The whole point of aim dodging is knowing exactly where the projectile is coming from before it's fired.

 

[LazyHunter]

Yeah, aim dodging would be the character reacting to the source of the projectile instead at the projectile itself. For example, two of the profiles I did for Index recently had the characters (Komaba Ritoku and Teshio Megumi) dodging a few gunshots at close range, but they clearly weren't cases of supersonic reactions as they were very likely just reacting to the person trying to shoot them.

A perfect example of aim dodging is Heavy Object, where Elites are especifically noted to track an enemy Object's targeting equipment and cannons to dodge lasers (Heavy Object has legitimate lightspeed lasers) that would be impossible for them to react to, as an Elite has Subsonic reactions on their own and Hypersonic to Hypersonic+ with help of their Object's targeting system. A few powerful Objects are dangerous because they make this aim dodging technique useless.

 

[TheMightyRegulator]

My two cents: Aim dodging is the avoidance of a projectile before it's launched by anticipating where the projectile will impact. Hence, for the feat to be scalable, the individual must dodge aftee the projectile is fired or else it will be referred to as aim dodging or inconclusive

 

[AidenBrooks999]

Fact is, normal humans can't dodge normal bullets solely based upon reacting to the muzzle flash. Even at 50 meters, a normal human can't really hope to dodge it. It's just too fast without superhuman attributes.
Aim dodging is about reading the opponent and predecting when and where they are going to fire as they are in the process of pulling the trigger, so to speak, giving much more time to maneuver out of the way.

The reason for assuming as aim dodging first is that it actually lowers the requirements of copmleting the feat compared to being purely based upon reflexes... unless there is sufficient reason to believe that it is a true reation.

Like Gotou in Parasyte

 

[FuaadMohamoud]

The user can avoid linear attacks such as bullets and lasers by simply quickly positioning themselves away from the path of the attack before it is fired. This can allow the user to avoid attacks that travel much faster than they do.

-Is aim dodging something different on this wiki?

 

[Antvasima]

I think that the OBD's definition seems to mostly make sense. There are lots of examples in comics of characters with low superhuman speed reacting to the movements of non-superhuman opponents who shoot bullets, lasers, and the like.

 

[Zerzavyx98]

Is aim dodging like the Naruto lighspeed fang attack scene?

 

[TheMightyRegulator]

^ That's an outlier. Hence I'd appreciate if you don't bring it up as Naruto is a very controversial topic and I would like to prevent thread derailment.

 

[ThePerpetual]

The OBD's distinction between aim-dodging and actual speed makes sense enough in most cases, the main issue seems to be deciding what does and doesn't count as evidence speaking against by this site's standards.

 

[DontTalk]

Hmm... ok reading through this most people seem to agree to go with aim dodging as default assuption that proof has to be brought up against.


Alakabamm brought up an alternative suggestion, which by default not assumes aim dodging except certain criteria are met. So that could also be considered, even though the harder regulations like the OBD are more secure in my opinion.


So let me write a draft for the article (not going to say I am good at that):

"Aim dodging describes a technique, in which a character positions itself out of the path of an attack before the attack is unleashed. Through this even a character much slower then the attack is capable of dodging it. This technique can only work against linear attacks, where one can determine the target before the attack is used or if a character is capable enough to figure out the target of the attack through minor details like for example psychological analysis of the opponent.


This technique is widespread between fictional characters and often not specifically mentioned as an ability of theirs. Because of that, if this technique could have been used to dodge an attack instead of dodging the attack itself, the dodging can not be quantified as speed for the character. Proof against aim dodging is, except unpredictability of the attack itself, for example that the character was shown to begin to move only after the attack was used."

Sooo... something like that?

 

[Drac32Drac]

Seems reasonable.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

Kind of a bit complicated for me to grasp the description but i agree to it.

 

[Faisal_Shourov]

I think the description is too big lol. no offence Donttalk. Can you make it little bit smaller??

 

[Alakabamm]

I agree that this is going to be an inclusive or exclusive thing, as you state DontTalk, but if we are going to do it either way I think we should list out conditions for making the opposite true i.e. how do I know it was/wasn't aimdodging. Even if we can't list out all the conditions, I think we should definitely compile a list of examples.

 

[Yamatohime]

So what about situation when you know that you're target but enemies attack is hard to comprehend because they can be launched in rapid succession or in spread blast?

 

[DontTalk]

I agree that this is going to be an inclusive or exclusive thing, as you state DontTalk, but if we are going to do it either way I think we should list out conditions for making the opposite true i.e. how do I know it was/wasn't aimdodging. Even if we can't list out all the conditions, I think we should definitely compile a list of examples.

One can make rules two ways. Either one says something is generally allowed and specifies exceptions when it is not alowed, or one assumes something generally is not allowed and specifies exceptions when it is allowed. Only through such a method one can cover all cases without leaving loopholes for whcih we have no decision.

So since we go with generally all attacks being aimdodged, we would have to list occassions in which we would consider it not aimdodged.

I have listed a few in the despription, with the general idea of the path of the attack either not being predictable or the character being depicted to move after the attack was fired.

If you want to add meaningful other cases were it should always be considered to not be aimdodging feel free to list them.

 

[DontTalk]

@CrossverseCrisis: If you can express it in simpler terms without loosing important details feel free to write a version. I know that my english isn't very good.

@Faisal Shourov: If you can meaningfully shorten it without loosing important details you as well can make a suggestion for the specific text.

 

[Alakabamm]

Well, I think the only true rule that prevents aimdodging is moving after the attack was launched.

The rule about linear paths is mostly true but even weapons that move in nonlinear directions have patterns and I can think of several characters who can predict patterns like that and abuse it.

So for example, the rules could be something like this:

1. If the character moved after the attack began

2. If the attack was nonlinear, HOWEVER:

a) the character must not know the pattern of the attack

b) the character must not have a history of aimdodging

i) if the character has a history, you must show proof that it wasn't aimdodging explictly

3. If the character lacks precognition/mind reading, HOWEVER:

a) rule 1 still applies


something like that

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

@DontTalk: Mmmm...nah, i'll let someone else do it. :/

 

[Promestein]

DontTalk's description seems good, to me.

 

[DontTalk]

...

For me all of that went under the " or if a character is capable enough to figure out the target of the attack through minor details like for example psychological analysis of the opponent."

Well, maybe I should just have said "other details".

Two things I want to note through:

A character must only not know the pattern of the attack if it isn't variable. An attack that always bends, but can bendin different angles is hardly aim dodgeable, except you can read the opponent.

"the character must not have a history of aimdodging " I would say only if he has a history of aim dodging non linear attacks that would apply. Just because the character has a histroy of aim dodging bullets it doesn't imply anything about commonly not aim dodgeable attacks.

Well, I will list them under other other details in the text, as long as they stay so few specific exceptions. The general case for all possible abilities will have to be derivated by common sense, nobody could list all of them....

 

[Alakabamm]

Yes, I suppose, but I think it is a rather common trait in fiction for a character to have "x calculation ability" and use that to predict attacks or even "x instinctual ability" and use that in the same way.

 

[LazyHunter]

I think that the OBD's description of what aim dodging is might be good enough. The important part would be to describe how to determine if something is aim dodging or not. Maybe something like this:

"This technique is widespread in fiction and allows a lot of characters to dodge attacks/projectiles much faster than their own reactions (like bullets or lasers/beams) even if it's not mentioned by name or explicitely used by the character. Taking these instances as actual reaction feats might cause conflicts with the general speeds and reactions otherwise displayed by said characters. By default, as long as the character can see the source of the attack/projectile (for example, a character having line of sight on a soldier pointing a gun at them), the feat will be considered aim dodging unless one or more of the following conditions is fullfilled:

1. The attack/projectile's path is non-linear and/or unpredictable in such a way that it makes aim dodging it by observation of the source impossible. For example, an attack that follows a random path or bends its path in the air. Previous knowledge of the attack/projectile's pattern would also disqualify the character from this feat unless sufficient proof to the contrary can be presented, as they could be merely using that knowledge to dodge the attack. The character also lacks precognition, future sight, or any ability or skill that could help them predict the attack's path beforehand in any way.

2. The character is clearly and explicitly shown to move after the attack/projectile has started moving towards them, making it clear that the character is reacting to the attack/projectile itself and not its source. For example, a character is shot and they are clearly shown to only move their body after the bullet has left the gun and is already in the air to dodge it."

Maybe we could add attacks that seek and chase after people, as those likely would also need the character to be able to react to them since they could correct their initial path.

 

[TheMightyRegulator]

Attacks that bend in the air are controversial as the change in direction results in a change in velocity and most natural projectiles don't work like that resulting in Lightning in fiction and lasers in fiction tropes, for example, making the feats highly questionable.

 

[Antvasima]

I mostly like LazyHunter's description.

 

[Slaphappyjoy]

Aim dodge - to see and then move out of the intended path of an attack before the attack starts its path toward the target.

• That should cover the dodger's proper recognition of the attack, where the dodger moves, the dodger's time constraint, and the dodger's awareness of rebounded attacks. Also, imo the attack doesn't have to be linear.

 

[LordAizenSama]

I like Lazy's Description of Aimdodging also.

 

[CrossverseCrisis]

Same with Aizen and Ant. I actually managed to understand how Aim Dodging would be described if we use his way...

 

[Slaphappyjoy]

Lazy's is a good description. Although, would previous knowledge of the attack's pattern be the same as recognizing the aim of the attack?