• 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.

Allowing "too weak" character profile related to a team added in the wiki

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mariogoods

Mariogoods

5,968
4,120
We have allowed the creation of Team profiles. However, it seems that the character profiles with 10-B rating and without abilities cannot be created in VS Battles Wiki. I am here to suggest for lifting the restriction a bit to allow such character profiles to be created IF the character is one of the member of a notable team. Here are examples of such character.

First example for such character is Tang Sanzang from Journey to the West. He is the weakest character in the Journey to the West team. While his "bodyguards" are constantly far above the normal human level, he is largely human level. His intelligence feat is about his knowledge regarding Buddhism. But no one excludes him from the Journey to the West team since he is the important member of the team. (and the supposed main protagonist of JttW if the monkey hadn't become more famous than him)

Second example for such character is Fang Jin-Shan from Underworld Ranger. Fang Jin-Shan in the series is simply hiding himself when a battle occurred and therefore his profile will become barebone. However, he has become one of the members of Ge-An Temple and regularly appears along with other members.
 
I do not think that we currently restrict the creation of important regular characters that are part of adventure stories and have some interesting abilities, including knowledge.

Can somebody check through our rules pages for further information please?
 
Antvasima said:
I do not think that we currently restrict the creation of important regular characters that are part of adventure stories and have some interesting abilities, including knowledge.

Can somebody check through our rules pages for further information please?
Click to expand...
Since I am the starter of this thread, I'll post possible relevant rule.
Preferably avoid adding character profiles that may be inappropriate or perceived to be in poor taste. This may include characters, weapons, etcetera, that are ill-suited for a statistics-indexing wiki, due to having no reliable feats, or ones from media which may be too controversial or otherwise unnecessary to be featured.
Click to expand...
The Example 1 and Example 2 I mentioned above would meet the standard because they are mostly (physically) featless 10-B (Though in Tang Sanzang's case, he has stamina and intelligence feats) but they just exist as a notable member of a team.
 
I wholeheartedly agree; a team isn’t all about power. Most stories with teams have that one member who’s good for their intelligence
 
BluudyManikin777 said:
I wholeheartedly agree; a team isn’t all about power. Most stories with teams have that one member who’s good for their intelligence
Click to expand...
I agree. Though the characters I said are not intelligence member. (For example, Tang Sanzang's intelligence feat is about his outstanding understanding of Buddhism, not tactical thinking. The Example 2 represents character in a team may has no special abilities and beyond human stats)
 
If a character has nothing to index, I think it makes more sense to just mention them on the teams page as a regular human.
That, in general, should be possible, as many larger "teams" (i.e. organizations) have a workforce of countless of regular (and often nameless) humans behind the scenes that likewise would need mentioning.
So the teams format just should be adjusted so that non-superpowered (or otherwise notable) members can be mentioned without having profiles. Maybe one could just mention named individuals in the membership section or something...
 
Thank you for the evaluation. That makes sense to me.
 
Organizations aren't to be conflated with teams, that's a separate domain altogether more fit for the Civilization format.

We allow for teams which have minority members who are unindexable, where their roles can just be explained in the Teamwork section and 99% of the time, in stats. Just use them since their pages are otherwise redundant.
 
Okay with this said verse's like world trigger have operators who aid individual squads in combat but they themselves don't fight but are essential to combat, doing things like giving enemy positions away by watching radars, and offering battle plans, some fictions also require these sorts of characters to activate some individual character abilities due to them having some kind of authorization or restrictions in-verse.

Would this be an example that you'd say requires just being indexed in the teamwork section or would require a bit more explanation as they do actively (while not on the battlefield) interact and play a role in battles
 
I agree with both DontTalk and Impress. We can easily mention the weak characters in the team profiles without actually creating individual profiles for otherwise pointless characters on an indexing front.
 
If they're not active members and are off-site of battle, like operators, list them in team resources.

In the rare scenario the operator is onsite, I genuinely can't see a single scenario they're unindexable. Not combat-oriented sure, but they must have SOME INFO ANALYSIS
 
The_Impress said:
Organizations aren't to be conflated with teams, that's a separate domain altogether more fit for the Civilization format.
Click to expand...
Eh, team format works better for many organizations than the civilization format. Organisations often have no territory, independent power source, industrial capacity or population beyond its members.
Not even sure where exactly the line would be drawn between what is a team and what is an organisation.
 
But you're creating a bizarre scenario where the "Teamwork" section is irrelevant given the humongous scale of it, and by that point you're better off listing it an organization.

An organization has a territory for their base of operations, independent power source isn't something most civilizations in general have, industrial capacity is synonymous with large-scale coordination noting human resources, and most organizations do have a large enough workforce.

Team format is made for profiles where all the members of the group and their coordination are accounted for, an organization of decent size will defeat the point of it and then you're once again dealing with unknown factors.

Unless it's like, a really small-scale organization I genuinely don't see team files being used.
 
Last edited:
DontTalkDT said:
If a character has nothing to index, I think it makes more sense to just mention them on the teams page as a regular human.
That, in general, should be possible, as many larger "teams" (i.e. organizations) have a workforce of countless of regular (and often nameless) humans behind the scenes that likewise would need mentioning.
So the teams format just should be adjusted so that non-superpowered (or otherwise notable) members can be mentioned without having profiles. Maybe one could just mention named individuals in the membership section or something...
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is basically my take. Mention them in the team profile if necessary.
 
The_Impress said:
We allow for teams which have minority members who are unindexable, where their roles can just be explained in the Teamwork section and 99% of the time, in stats. Just use them since their pages are otherwise redundant.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. You can list them in the teams Resources or Teamwork sections
 
Antvasima said:
?
Click to expand...
That we can made additions to the page based on what DontTalk and Impress said above if it hasn't already been clarified in the page?

Such as this:

Team Resources/Abilities: Do not include powers from individual members of the team, only include abilities given from equipment, weapons, and other resources the team has access to


If we're putting non combatant operators type characters into this category who provide assistance whilst not being on the battlefield it should be listed in the resources as suggested
 
I was referrring to that I did not understand the response "seems so" to a question that I asked.

Anyway, what do the rest of you think regarding said question?
 
I am too overworked with too many tasks to remember very well. Sorry. Please elaborate.
 
As I said, I agree with DT's idea. Just slap something into the Members section that allows for generally powerless individuals to be noted. If they are named, by all means just... list a name. Otherwise, I'd list these powerless individuals as [number] [group name]. "28 bodyguards". "7 knights". Etc. The only thing that would need changed for the Standard Format is specifically noting that such a thing is allowed.
 
Okay. Just to clarify, are low-tiered characters with notable powers or skills and important story roles fine to give profile pages?
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. Just to clarify, are low-tiered characters with notable powers or skills and important story roles fine to give profile pages?
Click to expand...
While I personally feel that it should be fine, I don't know how VS Battles Wiki staffs think regarding this issue.

Anyway, I feel that
Mr._Bambu said:
Just slap something into the Members section that allows for generally powerless individuals to be noted. If they are named, by all means just... list a name. Otherwise, I'd list these powerless individuals as [number] [group name]. "28 bodyguards". "7 knights". Etc.
Click to expand...
is fine.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Okay. Just to clarify, are low-tiered characters with notable powers or skills and important story roles fine to give profile pages?
Click to expand...
I think so, aye.
 
Okay. Thank you for the replies.

DontTalk's suggestions can probably be applied then. Is somebody here willing and able to properly handle it please?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Flashlight237
About The "Others" Section
2
Replies
70
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Armorchompy
  • Locked
Minor Team Profiles Change
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Armorchompy
Armorchompy
Jinx666
'Continuity' Section for Verse Pages
Replies
12
Views
1K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Just_a_Random_Butler
  • Locked
Correcting the References/Discussion Templates Instructions
2
Replies
72
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
The_Impress
Minor Standard Format addition: Alliance
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top