Danmaku Rework & Revisions

[Antvasima]

This seems good to me as well.

Also, I moved this thread to our staff forum.

 

[CloverDragon03]

Alrighty, since this is now a Staff Discussion, I'd like to remind everyone that non-staff will need permission from a Thread Mod (for one post), Admin (for three posts), or Bureaucrat (for indefinite posting) to comment on this thread.

 

[Shiraito983]

pretty nice. i agree

 

[CurrySenpai]

Seems good, we already talked about it.

 

[Arkenis]

I put the image center instead of right, I hope that's fine.

 

[Quibster]

I put the image center instead of right, I hope that's fine.

Undoing the change. I really want it to be shaped adequately next to the "Contents" section for visual clarity. In the future, please ask for permission before making those sorts of edits in my sandboxes.

Edit: It's also important so the mobile pageview of the image doesn't overlap.

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03

What do you think about this?

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I don't have a problem with the update, the sandbox looks good.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Mr. Bambu @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz @Firestorm808 @Everything12 @Maverick_Zero_X @Crabwhale @Agnaa @Just_a_Random_Butler @DarkGrath @Dereck03

What do you think about this?

Description seems overlong in describing random verses with it- even if I like alot of those verses, it seems unnecessary for a core page of the wiki.

The page should elaborate on the "no firearms" thing, as a machinegun would seem to meet the core concept of the page's function: I'm not opposed to this currently, I just feel it should be elaborated on since the OP just mentions removing it from Rambo without elaborating.

Speaking broadly, it seems fine, I don't have any strong reasons to oppose a general cleaning-up of the page. I think it was basically fine before, though, so count me as a light approval (assuming adequate answers are given to the firearm thing, I don't really understand that part currently).

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I already commented and said it looks good.

Description seems overlong in describing random verses with it- even if I like alot of those verses, it seems unnecessary for a core page of the wiki.

The page should elaborate on the "no firearms" thing, as a machinegun would seem to meet the core concept of the page's function: I'm not opposed to this currently, I just feel it should be elaborated on since the OP just mentions removing it from Rambo without elaborating.

Speaking broadly, it seems fine, I don't have any strong reasons to oppose a general cleaning-up of the page. I think it was basically fine before, though, so count me as a light approval (assuming adequate answers are given to the firearm thing, I don't really understand that part currently).

If I am reading correctly, it's because firearms such as assault rifles while they do rapid fire, the shots are still fired one by one and from the same muzzle that attempts a straight line like most firearms. Where as Danmaku is that many projectiles are all fired at the same time and shots are spread-out and more scattered.

 

[Antvasima]

I already commented and said it looks good.

Okay. My apologies.

 

[Quibster]

The page should elaborate on the "no firearms" thing, as a machinegun would seem to meet the core concept of the page's function: I'm not opposed to this currently, I just feel it should be elaborated on since the OP just mentions removing it from Rambo without elaborating.

The justification for Rambo's rating is planting many individual Cartridge Traps in a tunnel. Cartridge traps were utilized during the Vietnam war, and are simply a type of crude booby trap. I believe that this is in fact not Danmaku, and whomever deemed it whilst putting it on his page took the "many bullets at once" part of the requirement literally, with a scan of Rambo preparing the trap. The execution of this trap also happened off-screen (loud sound warning), which also contradicts the visual requirement for verification of bullets in motion. And the number of bullets that Rambo prepared, as far as we're shown, is 9-10 on-screen for that trap-- when the current standard is 20-24 projectiles in motion at once, minumum. Furthermore, this isn't fundamentally Danmaku at all, it's simply a mine AoE. For the sake of enforcing current standards, I do wish to have it removed from his page.

Tangentially related, I also believe that false ratings like these set a precedent that, projectiles produced from grenades or bomb shrapnel (from the real world), would be given a solid rating based on Rambo's. I do believe that consistency for this ability is important above all else. The last thing I want to see is spray-and-pray tactics with an AK-47 recieving a solid rating, when actual Danmaku is more akin to a curtain or or beautifully patterned hail of bullets. This was also a hotly discussed topic in the last Danmaku CRT, but I digress here.

If I am reading correctly, it's because firearms such as assault rifles while they do rapid fire, the shots are still fired one by one and from the same muzzle that attempts a straight line like most firearms. Where as Danmaku is that many projectiles are all fired at the same time and shots are spread-out and more scattered.

I should elaborate here; Danmaku isn't determined by projectiles fired at the same time, the current requirement is determined by the number of bullets in motion at the same time.

 

[Arkenis]

For characters who have Danmaku listed but don't fit it anymore, can they simply be removed or would a crt be needed?

 

[Quibster]

For characters who have Danmaku listed but don't fit it anymore, can they simply be removed or would a crt be needed?

This CRT isn't changing the currents requirements as much as it is clarifying standards; all other characters that currently have the rating should be fine. The focus is mainly on the page, of which Rambo was given a rating and listed as a user. Hope this clears some worries

 

[Mr. Bambu]

If I am reading correctly, it's because firearms such as assault rifles while they do rapid fire, the shots are still fired one by one and from the same muzzle that attempts a straight line like most firearms. Where as Danmaku is that many projectiles are all fired at the same time and shots are spread-out and more scattered.

Okay. The page does allow for that, however- the one-by-one thing, at least, purely by right of allowing the rapid creation of projectiles, not necessarily being all at once. This is a trait that holds over from before.

The justification for Rambo's rating is planting many individual Cartridge Traps in a tunnel. Cartridge traps were utilized during the Vietnam war, and are simply a type of crude booby trap. I believe that this is in fact not Danmaku, and whomever deemed it whilst putting it on his page took the "many bullets at once" part of the requirement literally, with a scan of Rambo preparing the trap. The execution of this trap also happened off-screen (loud sound warning), which also contradicts the visual requirement for verification of bullets in motion. And the number of bullets that Rambo prepared, as far as we're shown, is 9-10 on-screen for that trap-- when the current standard is 20-24 projectiles in motion at once, minumum. Furthermore, this isn't fundamentally Danmaku at all, it's simply a mine AoE. For the sake of enforcing current standards, I do wish to have it removed from his page.

Tangentially related, I also believe that false ratings like these set a precedent that, projectiles produced from grenades or bomb shrapnel (from the real world), would be given a solid rating based on Rambo's. I do believe that consistency for this ability is important above all else. The last thing I want to see is spray-and-pray tactics with an AK-47 recieving a solid rating, when actual Danmaku is more akin to a curtain or or beautifully patterned hail of bullets. This was also a hotly discussed topic in the last Danmaku CRT, but I digress here.

I should elaborate here; Danmaku isn't determined by projectiles fired at the same time, the current requirement is determined by the number of bullets in motion at the same time.

Should they not take the words literally? If so, we should change them, not just by disallowing firearms but by explaining the difference. Danmaku per certain Bullet Hell games may well be specific configurations, but allowing it to be flexible enough to allow for "lots and lots of bullets all at once to cover an area" seems acceptable to me.

I would like to ask: if a character moves such that a stream of bullets are formatted more akin to your preferred definition of Danmaku, would that appease your personal belief on what the ability should be? For example, the classic scene of spinning wielding automatic weapons to deal with oncoming groups of enemies, running while you shoot to perform walls of bullets, and so on.

 

[Quibster]

Should they not take the words literally? If so, we should change them, not just by disallowing firearms but by explaining the difference. Danmaku per certain Bullet Hell games may well be specific configurations, but allowing it to be flexible enough to allow for "lots and lots of bullets all at once to cover an area" seems acceptable to me.

So by default, most firearms would not fulfill the requirement-- by virtue of having less than 20 to 24 bullets to fire, in a given magazine or chamber of said firearm-- which is why I felt the need to add that note under the "Requirements" section. I can be more specific if I must, or just remove it.

I actually think that the "lots and lots of bullets at once to cover an area" is much more sensible standard. I agree with this proposal.

I would like to ask: if a character moves such that a stream of bullets are formatted more akin to your preferred definition of Danmaku, would that appease your personal belief on what the ability should be? For example, the classic scene of spinning wielding automatic weapons to deal with oncoming groups of enemies, running while you shoot to perform walls of bullets, and so on.

I don't think I can make this kind of assessment, based on this text example alone, in confidence. If you want my initial thoughts, that would potential fall under "Likely/Possibly/Limited" rating territory-- but context of the feat/scan is important, as well as the consistency of execution. This could also be derivatve from anything from an extreme degree of expert marksmanship to simple high reaction/speeds. Is there a example character that I could assess in reference to this?

For what it's worth, I do think that visual representation is stronger to go off of for any kind of Danmaku rating-- because this example in particular is ultimately up to a interpretation at face. I can see a handful of folks interpreting this example as Danmaku based on the "performing walls of bullets" portion. In such a case, I think it's fair for a character to receive a "Limited" rating for that attack specifically, but this is assuming the minimum projectile count requirement is met-- I'm also interpreting this as a singular attack, rather than rapid shot of "bullet walls", as described.

For example; the "walls of bullets" attack itself could receive a "Limited" rating, but not a general rating, assuming that this attack is the character's only means to produce it-- a distinction being how Kizaru's "Yasakani no Magatama" has a solid Danmaku rating by means of rapidly firing an omnidirectional hail of projectiles for a very long time, but is also listed as his only means of producing Danmaku through that attack specifically. This hypothetical character would, in theory, (and for the sake of argument) not be able to spam these bullets to the same degree as Kizaru, but would be able to create singular shots of many bullets (20 to 24) in motion to cover a wider area (via the "bullet wall" in this case)-- as per the proposed changes, through the "bullet wall" attack. I think such an attack would fairly quantify a Limited rating. If it's a spammed wall of 20-24 bullets, then that could quantify a solid rating in theory. (INHALES)

This is what I had meant by danmaku being "case-by-case", by the way-- it should ultimately be up to the means/technique of execution, rather than a general ability by which to label a character as having, unless it's plainly obvious for verses who clearly have it (Touhou, for example).

Anyways, I hope this half-baked assessment helps. This has been most constructive thus far.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

So by default, most firearms would not fulfill the requirement-- by virtue of having less than 20 to 24 bullets to fire, in a given magazine or chamber of said firearm-- which is why I felt the need to add that note under the "Requirements" section. I can be more specific if I must, or just remove it.

I actually think that the "lots and lots of bullets at once to cover an area" is much more sensible standard. I agree with this proposal.

Yeah, I wouldn't want it for something like an M14 or Makarov handgun, but in the instance of an M60 or tommy gun, whose magazines house dozens of rounds, I thought they would be fine. As you accept that certain firearms that match the broad description of Danmaku would be fine to function as Danmaku, the example scenario (had to imagine as it is) isn't relevant to my questions anymore.

Thank you, I agree with the changes and adjustments.

 

[Antvasima]

So which staff members have agreed or disagreed here so far?

 

[Quibster]

The last thing I want to see is spray-and-pray tactics with an AK-47 recieving a solid rating, when actual Danmaku is more akin to a curtain or or beautifully patterned hail of bullets.

I want to know more staffs’ thoughts on this.

There is a very glaring difference between spraying a tommy gun 1920’s mafia-style and creating a literal wall of bullets with a gun.

I also do not agree with the idea of giving an average human foot soldier a solid rating because of spray and pray tactics with a machine gun. Danmaku is much more distinguishable than that and I think it's worth getting a general consensus on.

 

[Tanin_iver]

There is a very glaring difference between spraying a tommy gun 1920’s mafia-style and creating a literal wall of bullets with a gun.

I also do not agree with the idea of giving an average human foot soldier a solid rating because of spray and pray tactics with a machine gun. Danmaku is much more distinguishable than that and I think it's worth getting a general consensus on.

In your opinion will something like this count?

 

[Quibster]

In your opinion will something like this count?

Assuming this is Ebony and Ivory, I think I can break this down.

So the "Although only one bullet was heard, the actual number of bullets fired exceeded dozens." statement appears to be the key part of the scan here, and also implies a rapid creation of these projectiles during the perceived instance where one bullet was thought to be fired. I think this is passable in my opinion.

Looking through a "Rules as Written (RAW)" scope as per the current, un-edited Danmaku page's requirements, it would recieve a rating; thanks to the "...bullets fired exceeded dozens..." statement at best-- and due to how the bullets were fired in a singular instance with Ebony and Ivory (in respect to the "very short timeframe" requirement) and the words "exceeded dozens". Both the "very short time frame" and "number of bullets" requirements appear to be checked. As for the number; here's how you can break it down with current rules;

To preface, I should also elaborate what the word "Dozen" means, and the implications of it's meaning in context.. (Pulling out my nerd glasses for this one...) The word itself is literally defined as "A group of twelve" according to both Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Thesaurus, and in general if that wasn't obvious before. To exceed dozens (at least more than 24 bullets in this case) in that timeframe would qualify for a solid rating as per Danmaku requirements. Another thing; seeing as this is an ENG to JP translated scan, the interpretation of the JP word translated to "dozens" should be checked by a Translation Helper-- just as a precaution.

Otherwise, I would recommend formatting the rating as such: "Danmaku with Ebony and Ivory (feat/scan described and linked here)"

==========

Now for a short Q&A,

Q: "But Quibster, why would Ebony and Ivory count, but not other guns?"
A: It's not about the normal rate of fire as much as it is the execution of technique/in what way the bullets were created. Dante fired these bullets in a drastically shorter timeframe compared to what a typical set of pistols, or soldier could ever achieve with the same weapons. The feat is attributed to the superhuman characteristics and speed at which Dante was capable of firing them. These firearms alone didn't create the danmaku, Dante did in this case. This is also to say that this would be a much better metric to follow for Danmaku created through these types of firearms.

Q: "What about Machineguns? Their rate of fire meets the requirements!"
A: I feel as though it is a misnomer to label bullets produced by such real-world firearms as Danmaku; and a very common misconception of this ability in general. Thus it should be addressed and broken down. When an average footsoldier has a machine gun, their goal is to hit a target, not indiscriminately spray bullets as though it were Danmaku. Logistically you would run into issues such as a gun jamming, being overheated, harsh recoil in the case of heavy machine-gun firearms, and ultimately running out of ammunition. This also contradicts the fundamental idea of how to handle a firearm in the first place.

 

[Quibster]

Some edits have been made to my post above.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Q: "What about Machineguns? Their rate of fire meets the requirements!"
A: I feel as though it is a misnomer to label bullets produced by such real-world firearms as Danmaku; and a very common misconception of this ability in general. Thus it should be addressed and broken down. When an average footsoldier has a machine gun, their goal is to hit a target, not indiscriminately spray bullets as though it were Danmaku. Logistically you would run into issues such as a gun jamming, being overheated, harsh recoil in the case of heavy machine-gun firearms, and ultimately running out of ammunition. This also contradicts the fundamental idea of how to handle a firearm in the first place.

A machinegun that otherwise suitably matches the idea of Danmaku should be acceptable to reach it, although we could come up with an alternative name for the ability if that is what offends your sensibilities. I note that your OP mentions military weaponry being fine, but here you're arguing against a footsoldier classifying (despite, presumably, wielding military weaponry such as a machine gun). Are you pivoting away from your original stance or are you suggesting something else?

 

[Quibster]

A machinegun that otherwise suitably matches the idea of Danmaku should be acceptable to reach it, although we could come up with an alternative name for the ability if that is what offends your sensibilities. I note that your OP mentions military weaponry being fine, but here you're arguing against a footsoldier classifying (despite, presumably, wielding military weaponry such as a machine gun). Are you pivoting away from your original stance or are you suggesting something else?

Not to be rude, but this reads like an Ad Hominum/Red Herring and doesn't address anything in the section of the post you replied to. You've injected "--but if you ignore all of that, it is danmaku!" which antithetical to point being made. Please address what is being said, else I am genuinely clueless to what you're trying to imply here-- as what you've responded to seems unrelated to me. If I am suggesting anything, it's clarified/new standards.

Edit: The Sandbox is subject to change; as I had specified in the OP. It is, currently, not final. Which is why I had said that I want staff input before finalization of this revision.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

...?

Ad Hominem implies I am insulting you, or directing my issues at you as an individual rather than your position. I am asking you a question, specifically about whether you've changed position- this would be the polar opposite to an instance of Ad Hominem.

Regardless:

"--but if you ignore all of that, it is danmaku!"

This is not my position, and I never said anything akin to it. My position is that soldiers match our definition of Danmaku, which is to say the ability to output an overwhelming amount of projectiles such that dodging them becomes unlikely.

My post above was in response to you arguing machineguns cannot be Danmaku. You didn't really provide a reason as to why that would be the case, and when I asked about it before, mentioned that pivoting to "lots of bullets" would be an acceptable change: given the tidbit still in your draft about military weaponry being acceptable, I had thought the matter settled. I feel there is some level of misunderstanding going on.

 

[Quibster]

You didn't really provide a reason as to why that would be the case

When an average footsoldier has a machine gun, their goal is to hit a target, not indiscriminately spray bullets as though it were Danmaku. Logistically you would run into issues such as a gun jamming, being overheated, harsh recoil in the case of heavy machine-gun firearms, and ultimately running out of ammunition. This also contradicts the fundamental idea of how to handle a firearm in the first place.

I actually did provide a reason as to why that wouldn't be the case for a footsoldier above in the Q&A. Why would this not be a reason? You had also replied to this text specifically too. I'll allow a chance to clarify because it's genuinely confusing me.

which is to say the ability to output an overwhelming amount of projectiles such that dodging them becomes unlikely.

Danmaku being hard to dodge is an irrelevant factor for a rating on this site.

: given the tidbit still in your draft about military weaponry being acceptable

Which tidbit?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

When an average footsoldier has a machine gun, their goal is to hit a target, not indiscriminately spray bullets as though it were Danmaku. Logistically you would run into issues such as a gun jamming, being overheated, harsh recoil in the case of heavy machine-gun firearms, and ultimately running out of ammunition. This also contradicts the fundamental idea of how to handle a firearm in the first place.

I don't really consider this to be good reasoning for exclusion. Aside from certain applications of weaponry like suppressive fire, the goal of all attacks is to hit their target, broadly speaking: Danmaku approaches that from a "spray and pray" point of view, but this isn't really dissimilar to certain military tactics.

Danmaku being hard to dodge is an irrelevant factor for a rating on this site.

I don't think you're really addressing what I said there, though. You previously agreed that lots of projectiles was Danmaku:

I actually think that the "lots and lots of bullets at once to cover an area" is much more sensible standard. I agree with this proposal.

...which is what I'm saying soldiers with a sufficient firearm can do (such as the minigun mentioned just before).

Which tidbit?

Note: Conventional firearms and non-military weaponry, such as those in the real world, do not usually apply.

This seems to state that you, while writing this, proposed that military weapons would "usually apply", given that you stated the opposite position was true (that non-military weapons wouldn't usually apply).

For the record, I'm still not really clear on where the Ad Hominem allegation comes from, and I'd like to put it to rest rather than allow it to continue to potentially hurt feelings. If it was just a misunderstanding then that's cool, though, I suppose.

 

[Quibster]

I don't think you're really addressing what I said there, though. You previously agreed that lots of projectiles was Danmaku:

I don't really consider this to be good reasoning for exclusion. Aside from certain applications of weaponry like suppressive fire, the goal of all attacks is to hit their target, broadly speaking: Danmaku approaches that from a "spray and pray" point of view, but this isn't really dissimilar to certain military tactics.

...which is what I'm saying soldiers with a sufficient firearm can do (such as the minigun mentioned just before).

I want to clarify my position on the idea of 'lots and lots of bullets all at once to cover an area.' While I initially agreed with this notion, it seems there was a misunderstanding regarding its interpretation. My understanding was not aligned with the concept of 'spray-and-pray' specifically, but rather with the idea of a dense field of projectiles covering an large area.

I've already presented arguments against why most firearms shouldn't receive the Danmaku rating, and at this juncture, I'm inclined to agree to disagree. In my opinion, equating Danmaku with spray-and-pray tactics using firearms feels like a poorly constructed oversimplification, to be frank. Danmaku entails a level of deliberation and calculation that is not present in indiscriminate gunfire. On a logistal and technical end, the argument also ignores the possibility of gun malfunctions, overheating, quick depletion of ammunition, that, in my view, underscores the impracticality of categorizing machine gun fire as Danmaku.

This seems to state that you, while writing this, proposed that military weapons would "usually apply", given that you stated the opposite position was true (that non-military weapons wouldn't usually apply).

The implication of military weapons as potentially applicable is not meant to suggest a blanket acceptance of all military firearms. I want to make this clear outright.

For the record, I'm still not really clear on where the Ad Hominem allegation comes from, and I'd like to put it to rest rather than allow it to continue to potentially hurt feelings. If it was just a misunderstanding then that's cool, though, I suppose.

Upon reflection, I realize that it was false of me to suggest that there was an Ad Hominem element in your response; that was not at all what I was thinking of. It seems this was wrong use of phrase on my part. Apologies for the confusion, we can put this to rest.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Alright, some misunderstandings are abated then. Could you clarify on what military weapons you feel are more acceptable than others, and why that would be? The implication hadn't seemed to be that something akin to a minigun would be disqualified, but you seem to be against that with recent posts: I would be opposed to this exclusion, but would be fine with excluding anything below a machine gun purely for lack of sufficient ammo to sustain such an attack for more than a second or two.

 

[Quibster]

Logged off early yesterday, will be replying soon.

 

[Quibster]

Alright, some misunderstandings are abated then. Could you clarify on what military weapons you feel are more acceptable than others, and why that would be? The implication hadn't seemed to be that something akin to a minigun would be disqualified, but you seem to be against that with recent posts: I would be opposed to this exclusion, but would be fine with excluding anything below a machine gun purely for lack of sufficient ammo to sustain such an attack for more than a second or two.

Thanks for the opportunity to further clarify. I cannot provide a concise, specific category of weaponry (I'm not going to pretend to be a "military weapons expert"). The ambiguity of the prior mentioned note is intended to apply on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket "yes" to all military weapons, as clarified. I can, however, narrow it down to provide some clarity on my stance as to what could qualify, based on how I think the note should be interpreted;

Rotary auto-cannons such as the M61 Vulcan, Phalanx-type Auto Cannons, and Miniguns would qualify. I can agree on these purely because they are designed to maintain steady streams of concentrated gunfire for much longer periods of time without the risk of integral complications, such as barrels overheating, or fundamental setbacks such as the need to reload ammunition-- compared to weapons like an AK-47 or MG42, both of which are materially cheap, not designed for indiscriminate gunfire-- doing so would would put the firearm's integrity, and yourself at risk (I've also already noted such impracticalities in one of my recent posts; with these types of firearms in mind, for the record).

Some of the aforementioned Rotary weapons are also used in assault aircraft, naval battleships, and sometimes utilized for stationary turrets. The Iowa-class Battleship uses Rotary auto-cannons, as well as an A-10 Thunderbird II, which I think would be much more feasible to give ratings through these weapons. I believe these types of military weapons align more closely with the criteria for Danmaku, since they are designed to be capable of sustaining a continuous barrage of projectiles over a prolonged duration; and are commonly used over more open, wider areas; without the logistical limitations present in military or civilian firearms.

Anywho, if this is an agreeable metric, then all that I wish to address now is how to implement this metric in the Sandbox. Otherwise I'm open to discussing this further.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Rotary auto-cannons such as the M61 Vulcan, Phalanx-type Auto Cannons, and Miniguns would qualify. I can agree on these purely because they are designed to maintain steady streams of concentrated gunfire for much longer periods of time without the risk of integral complications, such as barrels overheating, or fundamental setbacks such as the need to reload ammunition-- compared to weapons like an AK-47 or MG42, both of which are materially cheap, not designed for indiscriminate gunfire-- doing so would would put the firearm's integrity, and yourself at risk (I've also already noted such impracticalities in one of my recent posts; with these types of firearms in mind, for the record).

This essentially aligns with my view of what Danmaku ought to be defined as by this wiki, although perhaps for different reasons: capacity of ammo and ability to maintain fire is more definitive, in my view, than whether they were designed to do so. Still, neither of those firearms are capable of meeting the standard either way.

This was the only element of the OP that gnawed at me and I can defer to my previous position of agreeing with your proposal with satisfaction.

 

[Quibster]

This essentially aligns with my view of what Danmaku ought to be defined as by this wiki, although perhaps for different reasons: capacity of ammo and ability to maintain fire is more definitive, in my view, than whether they were designed to do so. Still, neither of those firearms are capable of meeting the standard either way.

This was the only element of the OP that gnawed at me and I can defer to my previous position of agreeing with your proposal with satisfaction.

I would be opposed to this exclusion, but would be fine with excluding anything below a machine gun purely for lack of sufficient ammo to sustain such an attack for more than a second or two.

This conversation has been insightful. Reviewing everything thus far to paint a better picture;

• Anything below machinegun firearms (SMGs, pistols, assault rifles, et cetera) will not receive a rating, for reasons of lack of sufficient ammo and ability to maintain fire.
• Weaponry akin to Rotary Auto-cannons (such as the M61 Vulcan, Phalanx-type Auto Cannons, and Miniguns) would qualify.

Beyond clarifying what sufficient ammo would entail, so there is no confusion in the future, I am in agreement with these terms.

 

[FuriousFieryFist]

I wanted to bring this up again before this thread is concluded but I believe we should decide on a solid value as a minimum instead of bouncing between two values like the page currently does. "To qualify for Danmaku, the user has to be shown to create tens or dozens of projectiles in a very short timeframe (i.e., at least 20 to 24 minimum)". Unless someone has a better proposition, I suggest we simplify it to just "dozens of projectiles" as phonetically in English it reads better than "Tens of projectiles" as well as being higher in number which is more in line with what Danmaku is all about.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Sounds good to me.

 

[Quibster]

Sure, why not.

Also, Sandbox edits soon (tm) for final review

 

[Quibster]

Revised changes are finally here for review (shown above). I've decided to codify the aforementioned standard agreements under a new "Important Notes" section under "Requirements".

Other minor changes include changing the text from: "... shown to create tens or dozens of projectiles..." to "...shown to create dozens of projectiles..." for consistency (As mentioned, the word "Dozen" implies a group of 12). The 20-24 projectile minimum will remain, since this CRT does not aim to change the minimum requirement; just for the record here.

I've also gone ahead and referenced this Staff Thread for future reference under the "History" tab of the sandbox, assuming it will serve as the new page. Anyways, I would love staff input for finalization of this Revision for any possible further edits/changes. I'm also in no hurry, so if there's more time and consideration that needs to be had, I'm all eyes and ears.

Lastly, Rambo's rating should be removed for prior mentioned reasons above, as his justifications/scans are not solid (You can read more about it in my prior posts).

Edit: Apologies for the days-long delay on this, came down with a fever yesterday.

 

[FuriousFieryFist]

Revised changes are finally here for review (shown above). I've decided to codify the aforementioned standard agreements under a new "Important Notes" section under "Requirements".

Other minor changes include changing the text from: "... shown to create tens or dozens of projectiles..." to "...shown to create dozens of projectiles..." for consistency (As mentioned, the word "Dozen" implies a group of 12). The 20-24 projectile minimum will remain, since this CRT does not aim to change the minimum requirement; just for the record here.

I've also gone ahead and referenced this Staff Thread for future reference under the "History" tab of the sandbox, assuming it will serve as the new page. Anyways, I would love staff input for finalization of this Revision for any possible further edits/changes. I'm also in no hurry, so if there's more time and consideration that needs to be had, I'm all eyes and ears.

Edit: Apologies for the days-long delay on this, came down with a fever yesterday.

My condolences for your fever. Moving on, the change we made to the wording on the page DOES affect the minimum amount of projectiles needed as the id est section is simply the numbered values for the sentence before. Since we changed it from "tens to dozens" to simply "dozens" the i.e. section would then change to "at least 24". This has already been accepted by Mr. Bambu and is simply a grammatical correction on your rough draft.

 

[Quibster]

My condolences for your fever. Moving on, the change we made to the wording on the page DOES affect the minimum amount of projectiles needed as the id est section is simply the numbered values for the sentence before. Since we changed it from "tens to dozens" to simply "dozens" the i.e. section would then change to "at least 24". This has already been accepted by Mr. Bambu and is simply a grammatical correction on your rough draft

I was fine with a mere wording edit, but I hard disagree with a change in minimum requirement if that was you intended behind the wording change.

The goal of this CRT was to clean up the page and codify standards; NOT go for a hard 24 projectile minimum requirement for a rating. That kind of change would have far-reaching consequences across profiles for those who do have a rating; and is contrary to what I had meant to achieve with this CRT.

Edit: Bambu, can you clarify who you were responding to?