Bypass and Negation

[Valxxroyz]

This thread and blog explains the difference between Bypass and Negation. If approved, the explanation will be added under the Hax pages.

Inputs would be appreciated, if any rewording is required then do as you wish.

 

[Antvasima]

We will shortly begin a major system update, so this thread might not get backed up, in which case you will have to repost it.

 

[Valxxroyz]

We will shortly begin a major system update, so this thread might not get backed up, in which case you will have to repost it.

Thanks

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.

 

[Valxxroyz]

No problem.

By the way, can you call Staffs or someone to give an input on this thread? Thanks.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69

We seem to need your evaluation help here.

 

[Valxxroyz]

Okay.

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Just_a_Random_Butler @Agnaa @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @GrathOfLux @Dereck03 @Planck69

We seem to need your evaluation help here.

Thank you so much Mr. Antvasima

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.

 

[GrathOfLux]

We talked briefly about my thoughts on the topic in the previous thread, so to reiterate - I wouldn't be opposed to this change if we can be adequately and agreeably clear on when a feat would fall under negation and bypassing. I think the circumstances that would fall under the latter would be niche and specific, but I feel it would only be a positive to specify its existence and the implications of such circumstances in practice. I don't personally the explanation confusing, but it's worth checking with others to see if any clarifications may be useful.

I would, however, make recommendations for changes to the proposal blog, both to fix some grammatical errors and for general clarity and professionalism in-line with the rest of the Hax page:

Negation refers to the ability to nullify or deactivate certain properties of an object or target, such as in the form of Durability Negation or Power Nullification. The effect of Negation can be categorized as:

1. Temporary: The nullified property returns to its original state after a certain period.

E.g.: Nullifying a barrier temporarily, allowing a character to pass through it until it is naturally restored to its prior function.

2. Permanent: The nullified property is removed entirely.

E.g.: Nullifying a barrier permanently, such that it will not be restored naturally.

Negation directly deactivates or nullifies a target's properties, either for a limited time or permanently, depending on the capabilities of the user.

Bypassing, in contrast, avoids interacting with a target's properties entirely. To reiterate the prior example: bypassing a barrier could involve going around the barrier without directly influencing the barrier in any form. This has similar consequences to Negation, as the property of the target in question can be ignored by the user. However, whereas the Negation of a defensive property may be resisted, Bypassing may be capable of circumventing this resistance by avoiding interference with the property as a whole.

 

[DontTalkDT]

A problem I see here is that we use the "durability negation" for abilities of which 80% probably bypass durability, rather than negate it.
I think in the rule text one can just switch "negation" to "nullification" (as in power nullification) to make the difference more clear. Maybe add a note as well, that durability negation can refer to either.

Interesting question is if a note of such a nature is better put on the hax page or, in rewritten form, on the power nullification page, to warn that bypassing should not be listed as power null (which is the problem with the separation I have seen most frequently).

 

[Valxxroyz]

We talked briefly about my thoughts on the topic in the previous thread, so to reiterate - I wouldn't be opposed to this change if we can be adequately and agreeably clear on when a feat would fall under negation and bypassing. I think the circumstances that would fall under the latter would be niche and specific, but I feel it would only be a positive to specify its existence and the implications of such circumstances in practice. I don't personally the explanation confusing, but it's worth checking with others to see if any clarifications may be useful.

I would, however, make recommendations for changes to the proposal blog, both to fix some grammatical errors and for general clarity and professionalism in-line with the rest of the Hax page:

I'm doing what DontTalkDT recommended me to do and I also asked him if he could help make it in-line with the Hax page as he's the best person for this, about the recomendations I don't think I could help much generally as English isn't my main language but I'll do try to fix the grammatical errors.

Edit: I've changed the blog from ur wording help, thank you so much.

 

[Valxxroyz]

A problem I see here is that we use the "durability negation" for abilities of which 80% probably bypass durability, rather than negate it.
I think in the rule text one can just switch "negation" to "nullification" (as in power nullification) to make the difference more clear. Maybe add a note as well, that durability negation can refer to either.

Interesting question is if a note of such a nature is better put on the hax page or, in rewritten form, on the power nullification page, to warn that bypassing should not be listed as power null (which is the problem with the separation I have seen most frequently).

Yeah, I could add two notes for it, though I don't know how to make the notes really in-line with the hax page (Like Note 1 & 2 on the page). Do you think you could help with that?

 

[Valxxroyz]

Emmmm, So, How is it? Can we add the notes or explanation on the Hax page / Durability Negation page?

 

[GrathOfLux]

A problem I see here is that we use the "durability negation" for abilities of which 80% probably bypass durability, rather than negate it.
I think in the rule text one can just switch "negation" to "nullification" (as in power nullification) to make the difference more clear. Maybe add a note as well, that durability negation can refer to either.

Interesting question is if a note of such a nature is better put on the hax page or, in rewritten form, on the power nullification page, to warn that bypassing should not be listed as power null (which is the problem with the separation I have seen most frequently).

I'm content with this suggestion, yes. And I think it would be useful to include such a note on both the Hax page and on the Power Nullification page, in forms appropriate for the contents of each page, to explain these concepts. It is relevant to both, after all.

@Valxxroyz More input should be provided on this matter before any changes are made - but if you wish, you can adjust your draft with these matters in mind and bring it back here for review. If you would like any specific help with doing so, you may contact me on my message wall.

 

[Valxxroyz]

I'm content with this suggestion, yes. And I think it would be useful to include such a note on both the Hax page and on the Power Nullification page, in forms appropriate for the contents of each page, to explain these concepts. It is relevant to both, after all.

@Valxxroyz More input should be provided on this matter before any changes are made - but if you wish, you can adjust your draft with these matters in mind and bring it back here for review. If you would like any specific help with doing so, you may contact me on my message wall.

Okay, but can you help me with the revision in-line? I don't really know how to do that like Note-1 and Note-2.